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.

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.

Auditory Outcomes Following Cochlear Implantation in Children with Unilateral Hearing Loss.

OBJECTIVE: Unilateral hearing loss (UHL) in children is associated with speech and language delays. Cochlear implantation (CI) is currently the only rehabilitative option that restores binaural hearing. This study aims to describe auditory outcomes in children who underwent CI for UHL and to determine the association between duration of hearing loss and auditory outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SETTING: Three tertiary-level, academic institutions. PATIENTS: Children <18 years with UHL who underwent CI between 2018 and 2021. INTERVENTION: Cochlear implantation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Speech perception and Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) were assessed postimplantation. Scores >50% on speech perception and SSQ scores >8 points were considered satisfactory. Associations between duration of UHL and implantation age and outcomes were assessed using Spearman's rank correlation. RESULTS: Of the 38 children included, mean age at CI was 7.9 ± 3.2 years and mean UHL duration was 5.0 ± 2.8 years. Mean datalogging was 8.1 ± 3.1 hours/day. Mean auditory testing scores were SSQ, 7.9 ± 1.2; BABY BIO, 68.1 ± 30.2%; CNC, 38.4 ± 28.4%; WIPI, 52.5 ± 23.1%. Scores >50% on CNC testing were achieved by 40% of patients. SSQ scores >8 points were reported by 78% (7/9) of patients. There were no significant correlations between UHL duration and auditory outcomes. CONCLUSION: Overall, children with UHL who undergo CI can achieve satisfactory speech perception scores and SSQ scores. There were no associations between duration of hearing loss and age at implantation with auditory outcomes. Multiple variables may impact auditory outcomes, including motivation, family support, access to technology, and consistent isolated auditory training postactivation and should be taken into consideration in addition to age at implantation and duration of UHL in determination of CI candidacy.

Intelligence quotient testing in children with hearing loss: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the current study is to perform a systematic review of the research literature to evaluate the impact of hearing loss on intelligence quotient (IQ) scores in pediatric patients. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched from their inception up to December 21st, 2021. REVIEW METHODS: Studies evaluating neurocognitive testing and hearing loss in children aged 21 years old or younger who had not undergone auditory rehabilitation were included in the study. Two independent reviewers evaluated titles, abstracts, and full texts for all included studies. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 3199 studies of which 431 studies underwent full-text screening. 21 studies were ultimately selected for inclusion and contained a total of 1716 pediatric patients assessed through 13 different validated tests of intelligence. Six studies included both hearing impaired (HI) and normal hearing (NH) patients, and IQ testing results. CONCLUSION: The results of this large systematic review demonstrate that hearing impaired children may perform lower than their age-matched normal hearing peers on IQ testing across a battery of IQ testing modalities.

Cochlear Implantation Outcomes in Pediatric Unilateral Hearing Loss: Impact of Device Use and Direct Input.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of daily cochlear implant (CI) use on speech perception outcomes among children with unilateral hearing loss (UHL). STUDY DESIGN: Multi-institutional retrospective case series of pediatric patients with UHL who underwent CI between 2018 to 2022. SETTING: Three tertiary children's hospitals. METHODS: Demographics were obtained including duration of deafness and age at CI. Best consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word scores and data logs describing hours of CI usage were assessed postimplantation. Use of direct audio input (DAI) during rehabilitation was recorded. RESULTS: Twenty-seven children were included, with a mean age at CI of 7.8 years. Mean datalogging time was 7.8 ± 3.0 hours/day. 40.7% of children utilized daily DAI. The mean CNC score using the best score during the study period was 34.9%. There was no significant correlation between hours of CI usage and CNC score. There was a significant improvement in CNC score associated with whether the child used DAI during rehabilitation (CNC 50.91% [yes] vs 23.81% [no]), which remained significant when adjusting for age at CI, duration of deafness, and data log hours. CONCLUSION: Unlike children with bilateral hearing loss and CI, children with UHL and CI demonstrate no significant correlation between hours of daily CI usage and CNC scores. However, children who used DAI during postoperative rehabilitation achieved significantly higher CNC scores than those who did not. This suggests that rehabilitation focused on isolated listening with the implanted ear maybe critical in optimizing outcomes with CI in UHL patients.

Longitudinal outcomes with intracapsular tonsillectomy, a single surgeon's experience.

PURPOSE: To assess the risk of tonsillar regrowth and post-operative complications associated with intracapsular tonsillectomy (IT) when performed by a single surgeon using a standardized technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The current study was conducted as a retrospective chart review of all IT performed by a single surgeon between November 11, 2009 and July 22, 2020 at the Cleveland Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic Beachwood Family Health and Surgery Center . Data collection included patient demographics, surgical data, post operative results, complications, and available long-term follow-up data. RESULTS: There were 221 ITs performed between November 2009 and July 2020. The post operative bleeding rate was 3.5 %. A single adult patient required re-operation for bleeding. Rate of tonsillar regrowth was 3.9 % (n = 7) and 1.1 % (n = 2) required re-operation (total tonsillectomy). No patients in the current study developed post-operative dehydration or had excessive post-operative pain requiring an emergency department visit or hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: The current study demonstrated similar rates of post operative bleeding after IT when compared to established rates following TT. The current study's regrowth rate was 3.9 % with a low 1.1 % rate of re-operation. This study adds to a growing body of literature supporting the use of IT due to lower complication rates when compared to TT, including post-operative bleeding, dehydration, and pain, with minimal rate of re-operation for bleeding or regrowth.