Vestibular Assessment with the vHIT and Skull Vibration-Induced Nystagmus Test in Patients with Nonprogressive Vestibular Schwannoma.

Background: Our primary objective was to monitor nonprogressive unilateral vestibular schwannomas (VSs) to assess the efficiency of rapid bedside examinations, such as the video head impulse test (vHIT) and skull vibration-induced nystagmus test (SVINT), in identifying vestibular damage. Methods: An observational study was conducted from March 2021 to March 2022 on all adult patients (>18 years old) with a confirmed nonprogressive VS (no active treatment). The SVINT (using a 100 Hz vibrator with two (SVINT2) or three (SVINT3) stimulation locations) and vHIT (for the six semicircular canals (SCCs)) were performed on all patients. The asymmetry of function between the vestibules was considered significant when the gain asymmetry was greater than 0.1. Rapid and repeatable assessment of VSs using two- and three-stimulation SVINT plus vHIT was performed to quantify intervestibular asymmetry. Results: SVINT3 and SVINT2 triggered VIN in 40% (24/60) and 65% (39/60) of patients, respectively. There was significant asymmetry in the vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR), as shown by a VS-side gain < healthy-side gain in 58% (35/60) of the patients. Among the patients with significant gain asymmetry between the two vestibules according to the vHIT (VS-side gain < healthy-side gain), the proportion of patients expressing vestibular symptomatology was significantly greater than that of patients without any symptoms [67% (29/43) vs. 35% (6/17), respectively; p = 0.047]. Conclusions: The SVINT2 can be combined with the vHIT to form an interesting screening tool for revealing vestibular asymmetry. This work revealed the superiority of mastoid stimulation over vertex stimulation for SVINT in patients with unilateral vestibular loss.

Cross-cultural adaptation of the CRS-PRO questionnaire into French.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), encompasses many different clinical patterns with variable response to treatment. Precise criteria specifying disease severity and control are lacking in the current literature. Our aim was to perform a cross-cultural adaptation of the CRS-PRO, creating a French version for use as a routine questionnaire in the assessment of patients with CRS. METHODS: The CRS-PRO questionnaire was translated according to the recommendations of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) through a three-step procedure including a backward translation. RESULTS: Seven of 12 items were initially discordant between the three translators before achieving consensus (Step 1). Two of 12 items were discordant between the backward translation and the initial CRS-PRO version regarding the word "mucus"(Step 2). Step 3 allowed the creation of a French proof-read version of the CRS-PRO questionnaire. Thirty patients were included for initial validation, mean age of 49.2 ± 15 years and 63.3% (19/30) male. It took them 67 ± 23 s to complete the questionnaire without any patients requiring more than 2 min. CONCLUSION: This study presents the French version of the CRS-PRO questionnaire-an adapted, validated, and well-accepted instrument to evaluate the CRS symptoms in the French speaking population.

Estimated Costs Associated With Management of Otosclerosis With Hearing Aids vs Surgery in Europe.

Importance: Surgery and hearing aids have similar outcomes in terms of hearing acuity but differ in terms of cost, aesthetics, and patient quality of life. The cost-effectiveness and budget impact of otosclerosis treatments have never been studied in Europe. Objectives: To compare the estimated mean costs per patient over 10 years of surgery vs hearing aids for the treatment of otosclerosis and to estimate the budget impact of an increase in the proportion of patients receiving surgical treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation analyzed French and European epidemiological data on the surgical management of symptomatic otosclerosis and compared them with data from the literature to build economic models. The analysis was conducted in January 2021. Exposures: Two care pathways were considered in the treatment of otosclerosis, either hearing aid or surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: Costs were studied over 10 years using Markov models of the 2 care pathways (hearing aid vs surgery). The budget impact analysis was performed over 5 and 10 years, assuming a 1-percentage point yearly increase in the proportion of patients receiving surgical treatment. Results: Over 10 years, the estimated mean cost per patient was significantly lower in the surgery group compared with the hearing aid group (€3446.9 vs €6088.4; mean difference, -€2641.5; 95% CI -€4064.8 to -€1379.4 [US $3913.4 vs US $6912.4; mean difference, -US $2999.0; 95% CI, -US $4614.9 to -US $1566.1]). Increasing surgical treatment by 1 percentage point per year for 10 years would lead to overall savings of €1 762 304 (US $2 000 798) in France, with an increase of €1 322 920 (US $1 501 952) at 10 years for the public health insurance system and a decrease of €3 085 224 (US $3 502 750) at 10 years for patients and private health insurers. Sensitivity analyses showed that these results were robust. Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that in France, treating otosclerosis surgically is slightly less expensive over 10 years than using hearing aids, when considering all payers. The proposed models developed in this study could be adjusted to perform the same analysis in other countries.