The World's consumption of free web-based Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery educational resources: A global assessment of video usage trends.

Objectives: Online educational platforms with open access have seen a growing adoption in the field of medical education. However, the extent of their global usage is still unclear. To fill this knowledge gap, our objective is to examine the usage patterns of two renowned open-access resources in Otolaryngology. This includes identifying the most sought-after topics and understanding the demographics of their users. Methods: Retrospective study of web analytics data between 2016 and 2021 extracted from the Headmirror.com and Mayo Clinic Otolaryngology YouTube channel platforms analyzing demographic and education topic trends via descriptive, geospatial, time-series, t-tests, and ANOVA analyses. Results: Viewership spanned 124 countries in 7 different geographic regions, with 72 countries comprising low- to middle-income countries, mostly represented ages of 25-34 years old, came from high-income countries rather than low-income (p < .001), and used mobile phones followed by computers for device access. Video-educational material comprised of subspecialty topics on Rhinology and Sinus Surgery (25%) at the highest end and Facial Trauma (1%) at the lowest. Controlling for the age of the video content, the most-accessed videos comprised of subspecialty topics on Head and Neck Surgery at the highest end and Laryngology at the lowest with significant differentiation across topics of interest (p < .044). Conclusions: This assessment of web-analytics platforms from two widely used otolaryngology free, online-access materials showed increasing global usage trends with significant differentiating factors along viewership demographics, as well as sought-after subspecialty topics of interest. In turn, our results not only lay the groundwork for characterizing the global otolaryngology audience but also for future development of targeted educational materials and accessibility initiatives aimed at ameliorating global educational disparities in the field.

Effect of a Global Pandemic on Adult and Pediatric Cochlear Implantation across the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on national cochlear implantation utilization by age using inclusive cochlear implantation data from two manufacturers between 2015 and 2020. STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of prospectively registered consecutive patient data from two major cochlear implant (CI) manufacturers in the United States. PATIENTS: Children or adults who received CIs. INTERVENTIONS: Cochlear implantation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Annual implantation utilization by age. RESULTS: A total of 46,804 patients received CIs from the two participating manufacturers between 2015 and 2020. The annual number of implant recipients increased significantly during the first 5 years of the study period for both children and adults, from a total of 6,203 in 2015 to 9,213 in 2019 (p < 0.001). During 2020, there was a 13.1% drop in national cochlear implantation utilization across all ages compared with 2019, including a drop of 2.2% for those ≤3 years old, 3.8% for those 4-17 years old, 10.1% for those 18-64 years old, 16.6% for those 65-79 years old, and 22.5% for those ≥80 years old. In a multivariable linear regression model, the percent drop in CIs differed significantly by age-group (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Especially in light of the prepandemic projected CI counts for 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic reduced national cochlear implantation utilization by over 15% among Medicare-aged patients and by almost 25% among those ≥80 years old, resulting in more than a 3-year setback in total annual CIs. Children were less affected, with those ≤3 years old experiencing minimal interruption during 2020.

Development and Validation of Instrument for Operative Competency Assessment in Selective Neck Dissection.

BACKGROUND: Instruments to assess surgical skills have been validated for several key indicator procedures in otolaryngology. Selective neck dissection is a core procedure for which trainees must integrate knowledge of complex head and neck anatomy with technical surgical skills. An instrument for assessment of surgical performance in selective neck dissection has not been previously developed. The objective of the current study is to develop and validate an instrument for assessing surgical competency for level II-IV selective neck dissection. DESIGN: A Delphi working group comprised of 23 fellowship trained head and neck surgeons from 17 institutions was assembled. The modified Delphi method encompassed a 3-step process, including 2 anonymous voting rounds to successively refine individual items and establish levels of consensus. Thresholds for achieving strong consensus, at >80% agreement, were determined a priori. The resulting instrument was subsequently validated in a prospective cohort of 17 resident surgeons, spanning postgraduate year 1 to 5 training experience. Participants were asked to perform a level II-IV selective neck dissection on fresh-frozen cadaveric specimens. Performance was scored by 2 independent, blinded observers using the devised instrument and construct validity was assessed. RESULTS: Through the modified Delphi process a final list of 30 items, considered to be the most essential items for achieving the goals of a level II-IV selective neck dissection, was developed. Construct validity was supported by a positive association between instrument scores compared to both resident postgraduate year level and number of head and neck rotations completed. CONCLUSION: The development and validation of a novel instrument for assessment of surgical competency in level II-IV selective neck dissection, a key indicator case in otolaryngology, is described. This new instrument may be used to provide objective feedback on overall and task-specific competency to identify surgical deficiencies and offer granular feedback to enhance surgical training.

American Cochlear Implant Alliance Task Force Guidelines for Clinical Assessment and Management of Adult Cochlear Implantation for Single-Sided Deafness.

The indications for cochlear implantation have expanded to include individuals with profound sensorineural hearing loss in the impaired ear and normal hearing (NH) in the contralateral ear, known as single-sided deafness (SSD). There are additional considerations for the clinical assessment and management of adult cochlear implant candidates and recipients with SSD as compared to conventional cochlear implant candidates with bilateral moderate to profound sensorineural hearing loss. The present report reviews the current evidence relevant to the assessment and management of adults with SSD. A systematic review was also conducted on published studies that investigated outcomes of cochlear implant use on measures of speech recognition in quiet and noise, sound source localization, tinnitus perception, and quality of life for this patient population. Expert consensus and systematic review of the current literature were combined to provide guidance for the clinical assessment and management of adults with SSD.

Barriers to Adult Cochlear Implant Care in the United States: An Analysis of Health Care Delivery.

Persistent underutilization of cochlear implants (CIs) in the United States is in part a reflection of a lack of hearing health knowledge and the complexities of care delivery in the treatment of sensorineural hearing loss. An evaluation of the patient experience through the CI health care delivery process systematically exposes barriers that must be overcome to undergo treatment for moderate-to-severe hearing loss. This review analyzes patient-facing obstacles including diagnosis of hearing loss, CI candidate identification and referral to surgeon, CI evaluation and candidacy criteria interpretation, and lastly CI surgery and rehabilitation. Pervasive throughout the process are several themes which demand attention in addressing inequities in hearing health disparities in the United States.

Lifetime Cost and Quality-Adjusted Life-Years Across Management Options for Small- and Medium-Sized Sporadic Vestibular Schwannoma.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the growing emphasis on healthcare costs, limited data address this aspect of care within the vestibular schwannoma (VS) literature. We sought to determine which strategy confers the lowest lifetime cost and greatest quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for patients with small- to medium-sized sporadic VS tumors. STUDY DESIGN: A Markov model was created to determine the most cost-effective management algorithm. Tumor characteristics, magnetic resonance imaging surveillance schedule, treatment outcomes, and health-related quality of life values were derived from previously published data. Cost estimates were based on CMS Fee Schedule reimbursement rates. SETTING: Economic Evaluation Service within the Kern Center for the Science of Healthcare Delivery. PATIENTS: Patients diagnosed with small- to medium-sized sporadic VS. INTERVENTIONS: Upfront microsurgery following diagnosis, upfront radiosurgery following diagnosis, observation with microsurgery reserved for observed tumor growth, and observation with radiosurgery reserved for observed tumor growth. RESULTS: Across patient ages at time of diagnosis ranging from 18 to 70 years, observation with subsequent radiosurgery used for tumor growth was the most cost-effective management algorithm while upfront microsurgery was the least. When presented with a hypothetical 50-year-old patient, the strategy with the lowest lifetime cost and highest QALYs was observation with subsequent radiosurgery reserved for tumor growth ($32,161, 14.11 QALY), followed by observation with microsurgery reserved for tumor growth ($34,503, 13.94 QALY), upfront radiosurgery ($43,456, 14.02 QALY), and lastly, upfront microsurgery ($47,252, 13.60 QALY). Sensitivity analyses varying mortality rates, estimated costs, health-related quality of life, and progression to nonserviceable hearing demonstrated consistent ranking among treatments. CONCLUSIONS: When considering initial management of small- and medium-sized sporadic VSs, neither lifetime cost nor QALYs support upfront microsurgery or radiosurgery, even for younger patients. Initial observation with serial imaging, reserving radiosurgery or microsurgery for patients exhibiting tumor growth, confers the greatest potential for optimized lifetime healthcare cost and QALY outcomes.

Audiometric Profile of Cochlear Implant Recipients Demonstrates Need for Revising Insurance Coverage.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To describe the pre-implant audiometric profile of adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients to investigate whether current binaural candidacy requirements prevent access to patients who could benefit from CI. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: Retrospective review from 2016 to 2018 evaluating preoperative pure-tone thresholds and speech perception scores in the ipsilateral and contralateral ear. RESULTS: A total of 252 adult CI recipients undergoing 270 implants were identified. Median age at time of implantation was 70.5 years (IQR 61.3-78.3) for those undergoing unilateral implantation and 59.0 (IQR 48.0-72.3) for those undergoing bilateral implantation (P < .01). For unilateral implantation, median pre-implantation speech perception performance in the ear to be implanted was 8.0% (IQR 0%-26.0%) for CNC word scores, and 9.0% (IQR 0%-34.0%) for AzBio sentence scores in quiet. Median speech perception performance in the contralateral ear was 36.0% (IQR 14.0%-60.0%) on CNC word scores, and 48.5% (IQR 17.5%-76.0%) on AzBio sentence tests. Speech perception scores were significantly different between ears for word and sentence tests (P < .01). Patients older than age 65 were significantly less likely to undergo bilateral implantation (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Adult CI recipients exhibit substantially poorer pre-implant speech perception scores than the commonly utilized ipsilateral qualifying threshold of 50% on sentence testing. Yet, existing insurance paradigms limit patients by excessively stringent binaural best-aided requirements. This limitation likely leads to worse device performance as patients often wait years for their binaural hearing to qualify while their ear to be implanted potentially experiences an unnecessarily extended duration of deafness. Older patients also experience a unique delay in referral for cochlear implantation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3- Retrospective review Laryngoscope, 131:E2007-E2012, 2021.

Survey of the American Neurotology Society on Cochlear Implantation: Part 1, Candidacy Assessment and Expanding Indications.

OBJECTIVE: To examine practice variance of cochlear implant candidacy assessment and off-label indications across centers in the United States. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of the American Neurotology Society (ANS). RESULTS: A total of 81 surveys were returned from ANS members who report regular involvement in cochlear implant care. Overall there was a broad distribution in age and clinical experience, with most respondents reporting ACGME accreditation in neurotology and employment at an academic center. The annual volume of cochlear implant surgeries varied considerably across centers.Seventy-eight percent of respondents performed cochlear implantation for at least one of the following indications within the last 2 years: profound hearing loss in children less than 12 months of age (35, 43%), children with asymmetrical hearing loss where at least one ear was better than performance cutoff for age (25, 31%), adults with asymmetrical hearing where at least one ear was better than the performance cutoff for adult criteria (49, 61%), single-sided deafness (37, 46%), and ipsilateral vestibular schwannoma (28, 35%). Centers with a higher annual implant volume more frequently performed off-label implantation in all queried populations (all, p≤0.001), and performed surgery on infants with congenital deafness at a younger age (p = 0.013), compared with centers with lower surgical volume.When surveyed regarding speech perception testing practices for adult candidacy assessment, 75 (100%) respondents who answered this question reported routine use of AzBio sentences, 42 (56%) CNC word scores, and 26 (35%) HINT testing; only 7 (9%) reported using BKB-SIN testing and 6 (8%) reported using CUNY scores. Fifty-one (68%) reported routine use of speech-in-noise testing to determine adult cochlear implant candidacy, 21 (28%) reported selective use only when patient scores were borderline in quiet, and 3 (4%) reported that their center does not currently use testing in noise for candidacy determination. Nineteen (26%) solely used +10 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), 12 (16%) solely used +5 dB SNR, and 41 (55%) used both +10 and +5 dB SNR. Overall, 19% (N = 14) only perform unilateral implantation in the Medicare population, while 81% (N = 58) consider bilateral implantation. CONCLUSION: Significant variation in cochlear implant candidacy assessment and off-label implantation exists across centers and providers in the United States resulting in healthcare inequities. The high percentage of surgeons performing implantations for off-label or nontraditional indications reflects the overly restrictive and dated status of current implant guidelines. With greater adoption of more difficult speech perception testing in noise, careful clinical judgment is needed to maintain a favorable risk-benefit balance for prospective implant candidates.

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Vestibular Schwannoma Quality-of-Life Assessment: An Important Step beyond P < .05.

OBJECTIVE: Several studies have demonstrated small but statistically significant differences in quality-of-life (QOL) scores among vestibular schwannoma (VS) treatment modalities. However, does a several-point difference on a 100-point scale really matter? The minimal clinically important difference (MCID)-defined as the smallest difference in scores that patients perceive as important and that could lead to a change in management-was developed to answer this important question. While the MCID has been determined for QOL measures used in other diseases, it remains undefined in the VS literature. STUDY DESIGN: Distribution- and anchor-based techniques were utilized to define the MCID for the Penn Acoustic Neuroma Quality of Life (PANQOL) and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). SETTING: Two academic referral centers. PATIENTS: Patients with VS (N = 538). INTERVENTION: Cross-sectional postal survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: MCID for PANQOL domains and total score and SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Component Summary scores. RESULTS: The MCID (median, interquartile range) for the PANQOL total score was 11 points (10-12); the MCIDs for individual domains were as follows: hearing, 6 (5-8); balance, 16 (14-19); facial, 10 (no interquartile range); pain, 11 (10-13); energy, 13 (10-17); anxiety, 11 (5-22); and general, 15 (11-19). The MCID was 7 points (6-11) for the SF-36 Mental Health Component Summary score and 8 points (6-10) for the Physical Health Component Summary score. CONCLUSIONS: The MCIDs determined in the current study generally exceed differences reported in previous prospective studies, in which conclusions about QOL benefit (or harm) among VS treatment modalities were based on statistical significance alone. Moving forward, these MCIDs should be considered when interpreting results of VS QOL studies.