Perioperative factors influencing hospitalization duration for pediatric neck abscesses.

PURPOSE: Pediatric neck abscesses are a common pathology seen in an ambulatory setting. Although some pediatric neck abscesses are managed medically with antibiotics, surgical intervention is often required. Given the often non-emergent presentation of many abscesses, a variety of logistical and perioperative factors may delay time to care and subsequently prolong hospital stay. The objective of this study was to examine factors that influence the overall time to surgery (TTS) and hospital length of stay (LOS) in a pediatric population with neck abscesses who ultimately require surgical drainage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 161 pediatric patients who underwent incision and drainage of a neck abscess over a ten-year period at a tertiary referral children's center were reviewed. Demographic information, radiographic studies, and surgical information were extracted from patient charts. Descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney U tests, and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: The most common subcategory location was deep neck abscesses (33.1 %). Computed tomography (CT) was the most common pre-operative imaging modality (54.1 %) followed by ultrasound (US) (49.1 %) and magnetic resonance imaging (2.6 %). US and a combination of multiple preoperative imaging modalities were associated with increased LOS and TTS. Repeat surgery was associated with increased LOS. Pre-admission antibiotic use was associated with increased LOS and TTS. Younger patients were more likely to have a longer LOS. CONCLUSIONS: A variety of factors can influence TTS, LOS, and time from surgery to discharge including patient age, abscess location, a non-optimized utilization of imaging modalities, the utilization of pre-admission antibiotics, and the need for repeat operations.

Evaluating Equity Through the Social Determinants of Hearing Health.

Hearing loss in adults is a significant public health problem throughout the world. Undiagnosed and untreated hearing loss causes a measurable impact on health and social, occupational, and emotional well-being of those affected. In spite of a wide array of health care resources to identify and manage hearing loss, there exist vast disparities in outcomes, as well as access to and utilization of hearing healthcare. Hearing rehabilitation outcomes may vary widely among different populations and there is a pressing need to understand, in a broader sense, the factors that influence equitable outcomes, access, and utilization. These factors can be categorized according to the widely accepted framework of social determinants of health, which is defined by the World Health Organization as "the conditions in which people are born, grow, work, live, and age." According to Healthy People 2030, these determinants can be broken into the following domains: healthcare access and quality, education access and quality, social and community context, economic stability, and neighborhood and built environment. This article defines these domains and examines the published research and the gaps in research of each of these domains, as it pertains to hearing health and healthcare. Herein, we review foundational sources on the social determinants of health and hearing-related research focused on the topic. Further consideration is given to how these factors can be evaluated in a systematic fashion and be incorporated into translational research and hearing health care.

The Use of Person-centered Language in Medical Research Articles Focusing on Hearing Loss or Deafness.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss represents one of the most common disabilities worldwide. Despite its prevalence, there is a degree of stigmatization within the public's perception of, or attitude toward, individuals diagnosed with hearing loss or deafness. This stigmatization is propagated by the way hearing loss is referenced, especially in writing. Although the medical community is familiar with hearing loss, medical research is not consistently compliant with nonstigmatizing terminology, like person-centered language (PCL). This study aims to quantify the use of PCL in medical research related to hearing loss. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of articles related to hearing loss was performed using PubMed as the primary search engine. The search encompassed articles from January 1, 2016, to November 17, 2020. Journals had to have at least 20 search returns to be included in this study. The primary search resulted in 2392 articles from 31 journals. The sample was then randomized and the first 500 articles were chosen for data extraction. Article screening was performed systematically. Each article was evaluated for predetermined non-PCL terminology to determine adherence to the American Medical Association Manual of Style (AMAMS) guidelines. Articles were included if they involved research with human participants and were available in English. Commentaries and editorials were excluded. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-two articles were included in this study. Results from this study indicate that 326 articles were not adherent to AMAMS guidelines for PCL (326/482; 68%). Emotional language (i.e., burden, suffer, afflicted) was employed to reference hearing loss in 114 articles (114/482; 24%). Non-PCL adherent labels (i.e., impaired and handicapped) were identified in 46% (221/482) of articles related to hearing loss or deafness. Sixty-seven articles (67/482; 14%) used person-first language in reference to the word "deaf" and 15 articles (15/482; 3%) used "deaf" as a label. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings from this cross-sectional analysis, the majority of medical research articles that address hearing loss contain terminology that does not conform to PCL guidelines, as established by AMAMS. Many respected organizations, like the American Medical Association, have encouraged the use of PCL in interactions between patient and medical provider. This encompasses communication in person and in writing. This recommendation stems from the understood role that language plays in how we build impressions of others, especially in a medical context. Implementing PCL to destigmatize language used in reference to deafness or hearing loss is essential to increase advocacy and protect the autonomy of these individuals.

Expanding Clinical Trials Designs to Extend Equitable Hearing Care.

Clinical trials are critically important to translate scientific innovations into clinical practice. Hearing healthcare depends on this translational approach to improve outcomes and quality of life. Across the spectrum of healthcare, there is a lack of diverse participation in clinical trials, a failure to recruit and retain underrepresented and underserved populations, and an absence of rigorous dissemination and implementation of novel research to broader populations. The field of hearing healthcare research would benefit from expanding the types and designs of clinical trials that extend hearing healthcare and novel interventions to diverse populations, as well as emphasizing trials that evaluate factors influencing how that care can be delivered effectively. This article explores the following: (1) the role, value, and design types of clinical trials (randomized controlled, cluster randomized, stepped wedge, and mixed methods) to address health equity; (2) the importance of integrating community and stakeholder involvement; and (3) dissemination and implementation frameworks and designs for clinical trials (hybrid trial designs). By adopting a broader range of clinical trial designs, hearing healthcare researchers may be able to extend scientific discoveries to a more diverse population.

Rural Adult Perspectives on Impact of Hearing Loss and Barriers to Care.

Adult hearing loss has a significant impact on communication and quality of life. In spite of effective methods of diagnosis and treatment, many rural adults face significant barriers and delays in accessing care. The purpose of this study is to characterize the impact of hearing loss and the barriers for hearing healthcare in rural adults. Using stratified purposeful sampling, the study design involved semi-structured phone interviews with adults in the Appalachian region of Kentucky between 2016 and 2017 to describe perceived susceptibility to hearing loss; knowledge of hearing loss; cues leading to help-seeking; barriers limited access to care; benefits of seeking help; and self-rated confidence in seeking treatment. Thematic qualitative analysis was performed to identify recurring content themes. Forty adults participated in the study. Participants reported susceptibility to noise induced hearing loss with infrequent hearing protection use. Participants described concern with hearing loss-related communication barriers that could affect compliance with medical care, employment performance, personal safety, and relationship communication. Rural adult expressed willingness to seek hearing healthcare but reported a lack of providers in rural areas. The cost and the lack of insurance coverage for hearing aids were the most clearly articulated obstacles influencing access to care. Hearing loss has a significant impact on adults in rural areas. A lack of providers and the overwhelming cost of treatment are barriers to care. Further research is needed to identify novel methods to support rural adults seeking affordable hearing healthcare.

Travel distance: Impact on stage of presentation and treatment choices in head and neck cancer.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to examine the impact of travel distance on stage of presentation and treatment choices in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in the rural setting. METHODS: 6029 cases diagnosed from 2002 to 2011 were obtained from the state cancer registry. Travel time was calculated to the nearest academic medical centers, otolaryngologist, and radiation treatment facilities. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine the association of travel time with stage of presentation as well as the likelihood of appropriate therapy after adjustment for other demographic variables. RESULTS: Patients in the highest quartile for travel distance to academic centers were 33% more likely to present with early stage disease (p = 0.02), and 42% more likely to receive appropriate surgical therapy for oral cavity cancer. Patients were 70% more likely to receive appropriate surgery if they were farthest from the nearest radiation center (p = 0.03). Proximity to otolaryngology care was not significant. CONCLUSION: Increased travel distance to academic medical centers is associated with increased likelihood of proper therapy for surgically treated tumors of the head and neck. Impact on these findings on improvements in access to care is discussed.

Adherence in the Cancer Care Setting: a Systematic Review of Patient Navigation to Traverse Barriers.

Patient navigation is an evidence-based intervention involving trained healthcare workers who assist patients in assessing and mitigating personal and environmental factors to promote healthy behaviors. The purpose of this research is to systematically assess the efficacy of patient navigation and similar programs to improve diagnosis and treatment of diseases affecting medically underserved populations. A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and CINAHL to identify potential studies. Eligible studies were those containing original peer-reviewed research reports in English on patient navigation, community health workers, vulnerable and underserved populations, and healthcare disparity. Specific outcomes regarding patient navigator including the effect of the intervention on definitive diagnosis and effect on initiation of treatment were extracted from each study. The search produced 1428 articles, and 16 were included for review. All studies involved patient navigation in the field of oncology in underserved populations. Timing of initial contact with a patient navigator after diagnostic or screening testing is correlated to the effectiveness of the navigator intervention. The majority of the studies reported significantly shorter time intervals to diagnosis and to treatment with patient navigation. Patient navigation expedites oncologic diagnosis and treatment of patients in underserved populations. This intervention is more efficacious when utilized shortly after screening or diagnostic testing.

Rural Family Perspectives and Experiences with Early Infant Hearing Detection and Intervention: A Qualitative Study.

Infant hearing loss has the potential to cause significant communication impairment. Timely diagnosis and intervention is essential to preventing permanent deficits. Many infants from rural regions are delayed in diagnosis and treatment of hearing loss. The purpose of this study is to characterize the barriers in timely infant hearing healthcare for rural families following newborn newborn hearing screening (NHS) testing. Using stratified purposeful sampling, the study design involved semi-structured phone interviews with parents/guardians of children who failed NHS testing in the Appalachian region of Kentucky between 2012 and 2014 to describe their experiences with early hearing detection and intervention program. Thematic qualitative analysis was performed on interview transcripts to identify common recurring themes in content. 40 parents/guardians participated in the study and consisted primarily of mothers. Demographic data revealed limited educational levels of the participants and 70 % had state-funded insurance coverage. Participants reported barriers in timely infant hearing healthcare that included poor communication of hearing screening results, difficulty in obtaining outpatient testing, inconsistencies in healthcare information from primary care providers, lack of local resources, insurance-related healthcare delays, and conflict with family and work responsibilities. Most participants expressed a great desire to obtain timely hearing healthcare for their children and expressed a willingness to use resources such as telemedicine to obtain that care. There are multiple barriers to timely rural infant hearing healthcare. Minimizing misinformation and improving access to care are priorities to prevent delayed diagnosis and treatment of hearing loss.

Targeting regional pediatric congenital hearing loss using a spatial scan statistic.

OBJECTIVES: Congenital hearing loss is a common problem, and timely identification and intervention are paramount for language development. Patients from rural regions may have many barriers to timely diagnosis and intervention. The purpose of this study was to examine the spatial and hospital-based distribution of failed infant hearing screening testing and pediatric congenital hearing loss throughout Kentucky. DESIGN: Data on live births and audiological reporting of infant hearing loss results in Kentucky from 2009 to 2011 were analyzed. The authors used spatial scan statistics to identify high-rate clusters of failed newborn screening tests and permanent congenital hearing loss (PCHL), based on the total number of live births per county. The authors conducted further analyses on PCHL and failed newborn hearing screening tests, based on birth hospital data and method of screening. RESULTS: The authors observed four statistically significant (p < 0.05) high-rate clusters with failed newborn hearing screenings in Kentucky, including two in the Appalachian region. Hospitals using two-stage otoacoustic emission testing demonstrated higher rates of failed screening (p = 0.009) than those using two-stage automated auditory brainstem response testing. A significant cluster of high rate of PCHL was observed in Western Kentucky. Five of the 54 birthing hospitals were found to have higher relative risk of PCHL, and two of those hospitals are located in a very rural region of Western Kentucky within the cluster. CONCLUSIONS: This spatial analysis in children in Kentucky has identified specific regions throughout the state with high rates of congenital hearing loss and failed newborn hearing screening tests. Further investigation regarding causative factors is warranted. This method of analysis can be useful in the setting of hearing health disparities to focus efforts on regions facing high incidence of congenital hearing loss.

Assessment of Vestibular Rehabilitation Therapy Training and Practice Patterns.

Vestibular rehabilitation therapy (VRT) can benefit patients with a variety of balance and vestibular disorders. This expanding field requires knowledgeable and experienced therapists; however, the practice and experience of those providing this care may vary greatly. The purpose of this study was to analyze variations in training and practice patterns among practicing vestibular rehabilitation therapists. Case-controlled cohort study. Investigation of outpatient physical therapy and audiology practices that offer vestibular rehabilitation conducted by a tertiary academic referral center. Questionnaire-based investigation of level of training in vestibular disorders and therapy, practice patterns of vestibular rehabilitation, and referral sources for VRT patients. We identified 27 subjects within the state of Kentucky who practice vestibular rehabilitation and the questionnaire response rate was 63%. Responses indicated that 53% of respondents had no training in VRT during their professional degree program. Attendance of a course requiring demonstration of competence and techniques was 24% of participants. The development of VRT certification was significantly more favored by those who attended such courses compared with those who did not (p = 0.01). 50% of therapists have direct access to patients without physician referrals. There is a wide range of educational background and training among those practicing VRT. This variability in experience may affect care provided within some communities. Certification is not necessary for the practice of VRT but the development of certification is favored among some therapists to improve standardization of practice of this important specialty.

Pediatric Hearing Healthcare in Kentucky's Appalachian Primary Care Setting.

Diagnosis and intervention for infant hearing loss is often delayed in areas of healthcare disparity, such as rural Appalachia. Primary care providers play a key role in timely hearing healthcare. The purpose of this study was to assess the practice patterns of rural primary care providers (PCPs) regarding newborn hearing screening (NHS) and experiences with rural early hearing diagnosis and intervention programs in an area of known hearing healthcare disparity. Cross sectional questionnaire study. Appalachian PCP's in Kentucky were surveyed regarding practice patterns and experiences regarding the diagnosis and treatment of congenital hearing loss. 93 Appalachian primary care practitioners responded and 85% reported that NHS is valuable for pediatric health. Family practitioners were less likely to receive infant NHS results than pediatricians (54.5 versus 95.2%, p < 0.01). A knowledge gap was identified in the goal ages for diagnosis and treatment of congenital hearing loss. Pediatrician providers were more likely to utilize diagnostic testing compared with family practice providers (p < 0.001). Very rural practices (Beale code 7-9) were less likely to perform hearing evaluations in their practices compared with rural practices (Beale code 4-6) (p < 0.001). Family practitioners reported less confidence than pediatricians in counseling and directing care of children who fail newborn hearing screening. 46% felt inadequately prepared or completely unprepared to manage children who fail the NHS. Rural primary care providers face challenges in receiving communication regarding infant hearing screening and may lack confidence in directing and providing rural hearing healthcare for children.

Delays in diagnosis of congenital hearing loss in rural children.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the incidence of pediatric congenital hearing loss and the timing of diagnosis in a rural region of hearing healthcare disparity. STUDY DESIGN: Data from the Kentucky newborn hearing-screening program was accessed to determine the incidence of congenital hearing loss in Kentucky, both in the extremely rural region of Appalachia and non-Appalachian region of Kentucky. We also performed a retrospective review of records of children with congenital hearing loss at our institution to determine the timing of diagnostic testing. RESULTS: In Kentucky, during 2009-2011, there were 6970 newborns who failed hearing screening; the incidence of newborn hearing loss was 1.71 per 1000 births (1.28/1000 in Appalachia and 1.87/1000 in non-Appalachia); 23.8% of Appalachian newborns compared with 17.3% of non-Appalachian children failed to obtain follow-up diagnostic testing. Children from Appalachia were significantly delayed in obtaining a final diagnosis of hearing loss compared with children from non-Appalachian regions (P = .04). CONCLUSION: Congenital hearing loss in children from rural regions with hearing healthcare disparities is a common problem, and these children are at risk for a delay in the timing of diagnosis, which has the potential to limit language and social development. It is important to further assess the causative factors and develop interventions that can address this hearing healthcare disparity issue.

Tools for telehealth: A correlational analysis of app-based hearing testing.

Objective: Telehealth evaluation of hearing is rapidly evolving; however, the lack of consensus on the most accurate remote hearing test application has made hearing evaluation complicated. The objective of this study was to evaluate the correlation between the pure tone audiometry results obtained from app-based hearing testing programs and a traditional audiogram. Methods: A prospective within-subject and between-subject study design was used to correlate audiogram results between app-based hearing programs and a traditional audiogram. All participants completed a traditional audiogram, 1 commercial app-based test (ShoeBox), 2 consumer app-based tests (EarTrumpet and Hearing Test and Ear Age Test [HTEAT]), and a Hearing Handicap Inventory screening version (HHI-S). Testing was conducted in an acoustically controlled environment (traditional) and a quiet room (app-based hearing tests). Results: A total of 39 participants were enrolled in the study (21 with normal hearing and 18 with hearing loss). In patients with normal hearing, only the commercial hearing testing app (ShoeBox) had a statistically significant pure tone average correlation in both ears with traditional audiometry (Right ear-r = 0.7, p = .005, Left ear-r = 0.66, p = .001). Both consumer and commercial apps had statistically significant correlations with both ears in patients with hearing loss (ranging from r = 0.62 to r = 0.9). Regarding accuracy within 10 dB of the pure tone average of the traditional audiogram of all tested ears, the commercial app-based test was accurate in 94% for all ears (normal and hearing loss), while consumer app-based tests were between 14% and 36% for all ears. The HHI-S indicated no hearing impairment in 95% of those with normal hearing and indicated hearing impairment in 89% of those with hearing loss. Conclusion: Commercial-grade app-based pure tone audiometry demonstrates overall strong correlation and accuracy with traditional audiometry. The HHI-S assessment remains a valid and useful tool to predict normal hearing and hearing impairment. Level of Evidence: 2.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Age-Related Hearing Loss Executive Summary.

OBJECTIVE: Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) is a prevalent but often underdiagnosed and undertreated condition among individuals aged 50 and above. It is associated with various sociodemographic factors and health risks including dementia, depression, cardiovascular disease, and falls. While the causes of ARHL and its downstream effects are well defined, there is a lack of priority placed by clinicians as well as guidance regarding the identification, education, and management of this condition. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the identification and management of ARHL. These opportunities are communicated through clear actionable statements with an explanation of the support in the literature, the evaluation of the quality of the evidence, and recommendations on implementation. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 50 years and older. The target audience is all clinicians in all care settings. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the Guideline Development Group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of ARHL. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The GDG made strong recommendations for the following key action statements (KASs): (KAS 4) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should obtain or refer to a clinician who can obtain an audiogram. (KAS 8) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, appropriately fit amplification to patients with ARHL. (KAS 9) Clinicians should refer patients for an evaluation of cochlear implantation candidacy when patients have appropriately fit amplification and persistent hearing difficulty with poor speech understanding. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should screen patients aged 50 years and older for hearing loss at the time of a health care encounter. (KAS 2) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should examine the ear canal and tympanic membrane with otoscopy or refer to a clinician who can examine the ears for cerumen impaction, infection, or other abnormalities. (KAS 3) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should identify sociodemographic factors and patient preferences that influence access to and utilization of hearing health care. (KAS 5) Clinicians should evaluate and treat or refer to a clinician who can evaluate and treat patients with significant asymmetric hearing loss, conductive or mixed hearing loss, or poor word recognition on diagnostic testing. (KAS 6) Clinicians should educate and counsel patients with hearing loss and their family/care partner(s) about the impact of hearing loss on their communication, safety, function, cognition, and quality of life. (KAS 7) Clinicians should counsel patients with hearing loss on communication strategies and assistive listening devices. (KAS 10) For patients with hearing loss, clinicians should assess if communication goals have been met and if there has been improvement in hearing-related quality of life at a subsequent health care encounter or within 1 year. The GDG offered the following KAS as an option: (KAS 11) Clinicians should assess hearing at least every 3 years in patients with known hearing loss or with reported concern for changes in hearing.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Age-Related Hearing Loss.

OBJECTIVE: Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) is a prevalent but often underdiagnosed and undertreated condition among individuals aged 50 and above. It is associated with various sociodemographic factors and health risks including dementia, depression, cardiovascular disease, and falls. While the causes of ARHL and its downstream effects are well defined, there is a lack of priority placed by clinicians as well as guidance regarding the identification, education, and management of this condition. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the identification and management of ARHL. These opportunities are communicated through clear actionable statements with explanation of the support in the literature, evaluation of the quality of the evidence, and recommendations on implementation. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 50 years and older. The target audience is all clinicians in all care settings. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of ARHL. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The GDG made strong recommendations for the following key action statements (KASs): (KAS 4) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should obtain or refer to a clinician who can obtain an audiogram. (KAS 8) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, appropriately fit amplification to patients with ARHL. (KAS 9) Clinicians should refer patients for an evaluation of cochlear implantation candidacy when patients have appropriately fit amplification and persistent hearing difficulty with poor speech understanding. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should screen patients aged 50 years and older for hearing loss at the time of a health care encounter. (KAS 2) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should examine the ear canal and tympanic membrane with otoscopy or refer to a clinician who can examine the ears for cerumen impaction, infection, or other abnormalities. (KAS 3) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should identify sociodemographic factors and patient preferences that influence access to and utilization of hearing health care. (KAS 5) Clinicians should evaluate and treat or refer to a clinician who can evaluate and treat patients with significant asymmetric hearing loss, conductive or mixed hearing loss, or poor word recognition on diagnostic testing. (KAS 6) Clinicians should educate and counsel patients with hearing loss and their family/care partner(s) about the impact of hearing loss on their communication, safety, function, cognition, and quality of life (QOL). (KAS 7) Clinicians should counsel patients with hearing loss on communication strategies and assistive listening devices. (KAS 10) For patients with hearing loss, clinicians should assess if communication goals have been met and if there has been improvement in hearing-related QOL at a subsequent health care encounter or within 1 year. The GDG offered the following KAS as an option: (KAS 11) Clinicians should assess hearing at least every 3 years in patients with known hearing loss or with reported concern for changes in hearing.

Hot or cold? Is monothermal caloric testing useful and cost-effective?

OBJECTIVES: Videonystagmography (VNG) is used widely in the assessment of balance dysfunction. The full test battery can be time-consuming and can induce patient discomfort. The purpose of this study was to examine the value of monothermal caloric testing in predicting unilateral caloric weakness, as well as abnormal VNG vestibular and nonvestibular eye movement, while considering the time and reimbursement associated with these tests. METHODS: In a retrospective review of 645 patients who completed a comprehensive VNG test battery with bithermal caloric testing, we calculated the specificity, sensitivity, and predictive values of monothermal caloric testing in relation to bithermal caloric results and noncaloric VNG results. RESULTS: With unilateral vestibular weakness (UVW) defined as a 25% interear difference, warm-air monothermal caloric testing yielded a sensitivity of 87% and a negative predictive value of 90% for predicting UVW. With a 10% UVW definition, the warm-air caloric testing sensitivity increased to 95% and the negative predictive value to 92%. Warm-air monothermal caloric testing had a positive predictive value of 85% and a negative predictive value of 18% for predicting noncaloric VNG findings; cold-air monothermal and bithermal testing displayed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Isolated monothermal testing is a sensitive screening tool for detecting UVW, but is not adequate for predicting noncaloric VNG results.

Comparison of Adult and Pediatric Cochlear Implant Wound Complications: A Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare age-related differences in wound complications following cochlear implantation (CI). METHODS: We performed a systematic review of PubMed, Cochrane Database, and Web of Science databases to identify original research evaluating the patient-level factors (demographics and medical history) associated with wound complications following CI. Outcomes were expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals using the inverse variance method. Studies without comparison groups were described qualitatively. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies representing 21,838 cochlear implantations were included. The rate of wound complications ranges from 0% to 22%. Patient age (adult versus pediatric) was the only factor with comparison groups appropriate for meta-analysis. The 10 studies (n = 9547 CI's) included in the meta-analysis demonstrated that adults had a higher incidence of overall wound complications (2.94%) than in children (2.44%) (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.01-1.69). Adults had a higher incidence of general/unclassified wound complications (2.07%) than in children (1.34%) (RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.12-2.52). There was no difference between adults and children for specific complications such as hematoma, infection, or seroma. Elderly patients (over age 75) have wound complication rates that range from 1% to 4%. No studies contained comparison groups regarding other patient-level factors and CI wound complications. CONCLUSION: CI wound complication rates reported in the literature are low; however, adults have a higher risk of these complications than pediatric patients. The reported complication rate in elderly adults is low. There is a gap in CI research in consistently reporting wound complications and rigorous research investigating the impact of patient-level factors and wound complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 133:218-226, 2023.

Sociodemographic Factors and Health Care Utilization in Pediatric Chronic Suppurative Otitis Media.

OBJECTIVES: Access to and utilization of perioperative healthcare may influence outcomes in patients with chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM); however, the influencing factors are poorly understood. The objective of this study was to assess the association of sociodemographic factors with perioperative health care utilization for pediatric CSOM patients. METHODS: We conducted a review on pediatric CSOM patients (≤18 years old) who underwent tympanoplasty with/without mastoidectomy between 2010 and 2020. Sociodemographic data and clinical were collected on all participants. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess the association between these factors and perioperative care utilization. RESULTS: 427 patients were included in the study. The primary factor associated with health care utilization was insurance status. Rural children were more likely to have Medicaid insurance (p = 0.048). For tympanoplasty patients, Medicaid patients have 1.66 higher odds of pre-operative no-shows (p = 0.01), 1.31 higher odds of post-operative no-shows (p = 0.02), and 59% lower odds of having a postoperative audiogram (p = 0.01), and 2.64 higher odds of being from a rural community (p = 0.02). For patients undergoing mastoidectomy, Medicaid patients have 1.25 higher odds of postoperative no-shows (p = 0.01), 39% lower odds of having a revision procedure for ossicular reconstruction (p = 0.045). Appalachian rural mastoidectomy patients had 3.62 higher odds of having cholesteatoma (p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Pediatric patients with CSOM who have Medicaid insurance, especially those who reside in rural regions, are at risk for lower perioperative hearing health care utilization. As these findings may impact care delivery and clinical outcomes, efforts should be focused on promoting utilization among these populations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 133:700-705, 2023.

Factors Associated with No-Show Rates in a Pediatric Audiology Clinic.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate factors associated with no-show rates in a pediatric audiology clinic. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PARTICIPANTS: All pediatric patients younger than 18 years whose parents/guardians scheduled an appointment at a tertiary Audiology Clinic between June 1, 2015, and July 1, 2017. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data included whether the patient came to their appointment, patient age, sex, race, insurance type, appointment type, location, season of appointment, and day of the week of the appointment. RESULTS: Of the 7,784 pediatric appointments scheduled with audiology, the overall no-show rate was 24.3% (n = 1893). Lower age was significantly associated with no-shows ( p = 0.0003). Black/African American children were more likely to no-show compared with White/Caucasians ( p = 0.0001). Compared with self-pay/military/other insurance, those with Medicaid were more likely to no-show ( p = 0.0001). The highest rate of no-shows occurred during summer (27%). On multivariate analysis, younger age, Black/African American race, and Medicaid insurance were associated with increased no-show rates. CONCLUSION: A variety of factors influence no-show rates in a pediatric audiology setting. No-shows can affect treatment quality and affect overall hearing outcomes. Further investigation is necessary to assess barriers to appointment adherence and to develop interventions to improve adherence and care.