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.

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.

Benefits of unilateral cochlear implantation in adults with asymmetric hearing loss: Audiologic and patient-related outcome measures.

PURPOSE: To investigate the benefits of cochlear implantation in adults with single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective within-subjects repeated-measures. SETTING: Two tertiary cochlear implant centers. PATIENTS: Fourteen adults with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss in the worse hearing ear and up to moderate SNHL in the better hearing ear. INTERVENTION: Cochlear implantation in the worse hearing ear. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) test, AzBio sentence test in noise, and lateralization testing were conducted preoperatively and at 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-activation. Patient-related outcomes were measured using the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale and Glasgow Benefit Inventory. Tinnitus Handicap Inventory was administered to subjects with tinnitus. RESULTS: Mean length of hearing loss in the worse hearing ear was 3.5 years. The mean CNC change scores from baseline were 54.8, 55.9, and 58.9 percentage points at 3-, 6-, and 12-months (p < 0.001). AzBio sentence test in noise demonstrated improved scores in all spatial configurations, although statistically significant in S0N0 (speech front, noise front) only. Lateralization testing showed significant improvement of 22.9, 24.5, and 24.0 percentage points at 3-, 6-, and 12 months post-activation (p = 0.002). All patient-related outcome measures revealed significant improvement. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates improved speech perception in noise, sound lateralization, quality of life, and reduction in tinnitus perception in adults with SSD/AHL who undergo cochlear implantation. Our results add to the growing body of evidence that cochlear implant should be offered to this population.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Children With Unilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss Following Cochlear Implantation.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) benefits with cochlear implantation (CI) in children with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss (USNHL) versus bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (BSNHL). STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey of parents of children who underwent CI for USNHL and BSNHL. SETTING: Tertiary care academic centers. METHODS: The "Children with cochlear implants: parental perspectives" survey was administered. Parents rated responses on a 5-point Likert scale. Scores greater than 3.0 were considered favorable. Responses were recorded within 8 domains and groups were compared with respect to domain scores. Analysis of covariance models was used to compare groups while adjusting for age at implantation and duration of implant use. RESULTS: There were 31 patients with USNHL and 27 patients with BSNHL. The average age of implantation in BSNHL patients was 1.9 and 6.7 years for USNHL. Parents of all children answered favorably in all domains. When adjusted for age at implantation and duration of implant use, parents of BSNHL children responded significantly more favorably only in 2 domains. When comparing patients with older age or prolonged duration of hearing loss in the USNHL cohort, there were favorable responses in all domains with no significant differences between groups. CONCLUSION: There are HR-QOL benefits of CI in USNHL children; less pronounced favorable results were noted only in 2 domains when compared to BSNHL children. Benefits were noted with CI in USNHL children at an older age at implantation or prolonged duration of hearing loss. Therefore, these factors should not be absolute contraindications for CI in USNHL.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Tympanostomy Tubes in Children (Update).

OBJECTIVE: Insertion of tympanostomy tubes is the most common ambulatory surgery performed on children in the United States. Tympanostomy tubes are most often inserted because of persistent middle ear fluid, frequent ear infections, or ear infections that persist after antibiotic therapy. All these conditions are encompassed by the term otitis media (middle ear inflammation). This guideline update provides evidence-based recommendations for patient selection and surgical indications for managing tympanostomy tubes in children. The guideline is intended for any clinician involved in managing children aged 6 months to 12 years with tympanostomy tubes or children being considered for tympanostomy tubes in any care setting as an intervention for otitis media of any type. The target audience includes specialists, primary care clinicians, and allied health professionals. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical practice guideline update is to reassess and update recommendations in the prior guideline from 2013 and to provide clinicians with trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations on patient selection and surgical indications for managing tympanostomy tubes in children. In planning the content of the updated guideline, the guideline update group (GUG) affirmed and included all the original key action statements (KASs), based on external review and GUG assessment of the original recommendations. The guideline update was supplemented with new research evidence and expanded profiles that addressed quality improvement and implementation issues. The group also discussed and prioritized the need for new recommendations based on gaps in the initial guideline or new evidence that would warrant and support KASs. The GUG further sought to bring greater coherence to the guideline recommendations by displaying relationships in a new flowchart to facilitate clinical decision making. Last, knowledge gaps were identified to guide future research. METHODS: In developing this update, the methods outlined in the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation's "Clinical Practice Guideline Development Manual, Third Edition: A Quality-Driven Approach for Translating Evidence Into Action" were followed explicitly. The GUG was convened with representation from the disciplines of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, otology, pediatrics, audiology, anesthesiology, family medicine, advanced practice nursing, speech-language pathology, and consumer advocacy. ACTION STATEMENTS: The GUG made strong recommendations for the following KASs: (14) clinicians should prescribe topical antibiotic ear drops only, without oral antibiotics, for children with uncomplicated acute tympanostomy tube otorrhea; (16) the surgeon or designee should examine the ears of a child within 3 months of tympanostomy tube insertion AND should educate families regarding the need for routine, periodic follow-up to examine the ears until the tubes extrude.The GUG made recommendations for the following KASs: (1) clinicians should not perform tympanostomy tube insertion in children with a single episode of otitis media with effusion (OME) of less than 3 months' duration, from the date of onset (if known) or from the date of diagnosis (if onset is unknown); (2) clinicians should obtain a hearing evaluation if OME persists for 3 months or longer OR prior to surgery when a child becomes a candidate for tympanostomy tube insertion; (3) clinicians should offer bilateral tympanostomy tube insertion to children with bilateral OME for 3 months or longer AND documented hearing difficulties; (5) clinicians should reevaluate, at 3- to 6-month intervals, children with chronic OME who do not receive tympanostomy tubes, until the effusion is no longer present, significant hearing loss is detected, or structural abnormalities of the tympanic membrane or middle ear are suspected; (6) clinicians should not perform tympanostomy tube insertion in children with recurrent acute otitis media who do not have middle ear effusion in either ear at the time of assessment for tube candidacy; (7) clinicians should offer bilateral tympanostomy tube insertion in children with recurrent acute otitis media who have unilateral or bilateral middle ear effusion at the time of assessment for tube candidacy; (8) clinicians should determine if a child with recurrent acute otitis media or with OME of any duration is at increased risk for speech, language, or learning problems from otitis media because of baseline sensory, physical, cognitive, or behavioral factors; (10) the clinician should not place long-term tubes as initial surgery for children who meet criteria for tube insertion unless there is a specific reason based on an anticipated need for prolonged middle ear ventilation beyond that of a short-term tube; (12) in the perioperative period, clinicians should educate caregivers of children with tympanostomy tubes regarding the expected duration of tube function, recommended follow-up schedule, and detection of complications; (13) clinicians should not routinely prescribe postoperative antibiotic ear drops after tympanostomy tube placement; (15) clinicians should not encourage routine, prophylactic water precautions (use of earplugs or headbands, avoidance of swimming or water sports) for children with tympanostomy tubes.The GUG offered the following KASs as options: (4) clinicians may perform tympanostomy tube insertion in children with unilateral or bilateral OME for 3 months or longer (chronic OME) AND symptoms that are likely attributable, all or in part, to OME that include, but are not limited to, balance (vestibular) problems, poor school performance, behavioral problems, ear discomfort, or reduced quality of life; (9) clinicians may perform tympanostomy tube insertion in at-risk children with unilateral or bilateral OME that is likely to persist as reflected by a type B (flat) tympanogram or a documented effusion for 3 months or longer; (11) clinicians may perform adenoidectomy as an adjunct to tympanostomy tube insertion for children with symptoms directly related to the adenoids (adenoid infection or nasal obstruction) OR in children aged 4 years or older to potentially reduce future incidence of recurrent otitis media or the need for repeat tube insertion.

Executive Summary of Clinical Practice Guideline on Tympanostomy Tubes in Children (Update).

OBJECTIVE: This executive summary of the guideline update provides evidence-based recommendations for patient selection and surgical indications for managing tympanostomy tubes in children. The summary and guideline are intended for any clinician involved in managing children aged 6 months to 12 years with tympanostomy tubes or children being considered for tympanostomy tubes in any care setting as an intervention for otitis media of any type. The target audience includes specialists, primary care clinicians, and allied health professionals. PURPOSE: The purpose of this executive summary is to provide a succinct overview for clinicians of the key action statements (recommendations), summary tables, and patient decision aids from the update of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation's "Clinical Practice Guideline: Tympanostomy Tubes in Children (Update)." The new guideline updates recommendations in the prior guideline from 2013 and provides clinicians with trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations on patient selection and surgical indications for managing tympanostomy tubes in children. This summary is not intended to substitute for the full guideline, and clinicians are encouraged to read the full guideline before implementing the recommended actions. METHODS: The guideline on which this summary is based was developed using methods outlined in the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation's "Clinical Practice Guideline Development Manual, Third Edition: A Quality-Driven Approach for Translating Evidence Into Action," which were followed explicitly. The guideline update group represented the disciplines of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, otology, pediatrics, audiology, anesthesiology, family medicine, advanced practice nursing, speech-language pathology, and consumer advocacy. ACTION STATEMENTS: Strong recommendations were made for the following key action statements: (14) Clinicians should prescribe topical antibiotic ear drops only, without oral antibiotics, for children with uncomplicated acute tympanostomy tube otorrhea. (16) The surgeon or designee should examine the ears of a child within 3 months of tympanostomy tube insertion AND should educate families regarding the need for routine, periodic follow-up to examine the ears until the tubes extrude.Recommendations were made for the following key action statements: (1) Clinicians should not perform tympanostomy tube insertion in children with a single episode of otitis media with effusion (OME) of less than 3 months' duration, from the date of onset (if known) or from the date of diagnosis (if onset is unknown). (2) Clinicians should obtain a hearing evaluation if OME persists for 3 months or longer OR prior to surgery when a child becomes a candidate for tympanostomy tube insertion. (3) Clinicians should offer bilateral tympanostomy tube insertion to children with bilateral OME for 3 months or longer AND documented hearing difficulties. (5) Clinicians should reevaluate, at 3- to 6-month intervals, children with chronic OME who do not receive tympanostomy tubes, until the effusion is no longer present, significant hearing loss is detected, or structural abnormalities of the tympanic membrane or middle ear are suspected. (6) Clinicians should not perform tympanostomy tube insertion in children with recurrent acute otitis media (AOM) who do not have middle ear effusion (MEE) in either ear at the time of assessment for tube candidacy. (7) Clinicians should offer bilateral tympanostomy tube insertion in children with recurrent AOM who have unilateral or bilateral MEE at the time of assessment for tube candidacy. (8) Clinicians should determine if a child with recurrent AOM or with OME of any duration is at increased risk for speech, language, or learning problems from otitis media because of baseline sensory, physical, cognitive, or behavioral factors. (10) The clinician should not place long-term tubes as initial surgery for children who meet criteria for tube insertion unless there is a specific reason based on an anticipated need for prolonged middle ear ventilation beyond that of a short-term tube. (12) In the perioperative period, clinicians should educate caregivers of children with tympanostomy tubes regarding the expected duration of tube function, recommended follow-up schedule, and detection of complications. (13) Clinicians should not routinely prescribe postoperative antibiotic ear drops after tympanostomy tube placement. (15) Clinicians should not encourage routine, prophylactic water precautions (use of earplugs or headbands, avoidance of swimming or water sports) for children with tympanostomy tubes.Options were offered from the following key action statements: (4) Clinicians may perform tympanostomy tube insertion in children with unilateral or bilateral OME for 3 months or longer (chronic OME) AND symptoms that are likely attributable, all or in part, to OME that include, but are not limited to, balance (vestibular) problems, poor school performance, behavioral problems, ear discomfort, or reduced quality of life. (9) Clinicians may perform tympanostomy tube insertion in at-risk children with unilateral or bilateral OME that is likely to persist as reflected by a type B (flat) tympanogram or a documented effusion for 3 months or longer. (11) Clinicians may perform adenoidectomy as an adjunct to tympanostomy tube insertion for children with symptoms directly related to the adenoids (adenoid infection or nasal obstruction) OR in children aged 4 years or older to potentially reduce future incidence of recurrent otitis media or the need for repeat tube insertion.

Office Insertion of Tympanostomy Tubes and the Role of Automated Insertion Devices.

OBJECTIVE: Insertion of tubes in an office setting and automated tube insertion devices were identified as high-priority quality improvement opportunities during the update process for the 2013 clinical practice guideline on tympanostomy tubes from the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. The guideline update group, however, decided to avoid any recommendations on these topics, based on limited research evidence, and instead selected a subset of group members to author this state of the art review, with the goal of facilitating informed decisions in clinical practice. DATA SOURCES: PubMed through September 2021, Google search of device manufacturer websites, and SmartTots research website for articles on anesthesia neurotoxicity. REVIEW METHODS: A state of the art review format emphasizing evidence from the past 5 years, with manual cross-checks of reference lists of identified articles for additional relevant studies. CONCLUSIONS: The existing literature is too sparse to make recommendations about procedure setting and optimal technique or assess long-term outcomes. The role of automated devices is uncertain, given the increased equipment cost and limited information on characteristics of the proprietary preloaded tubes, including intubation duration and rates of otorrhea, obstruction, medialization, granulation tissue, and persistent perforation. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Whether to undertake in-office tube insertion in awake children should be based on clinician experience, clinician ability to interact with and reassure caregivers, shared decisions with caregivers, and judgment regarding the level of cooperation (or lack thereof) to be expected from a given child. Clinicians should remain alert to new research and expect increasing queries from patients and families.

Tumor-Related and Patient-Related Variables Affecting Length of Hospital Stay Following Vestibular Schwannoma Microsurgery.

OBJECTIVE: Review a single institution's vestibular schwannoma (VS) microsurgery experience to determine (1) correlations between demographics, comorbidities, and/or surgical approach on hospital length of stay (LOS) and discharge disposition and (2) trends in surgical approach over time. METHODS: Retrospective case series from a multidisciplinary skull base program at a tertiary care, academic hospital. All adult (>18 years) patients undergoing primary microsurgery for VS between 2008 and 2018 were included. RESULTS: A total of 147 subjects were identified. Surgical approach was split between middle fossa (MF) (16%), retrosigmoid (RS) (35%), and translabyrinthine (TL) (49%) craniotomies. For the 8% of patients had other than routine (OTR) discharge. Mean LOS was significantly longer for patients undergoing RS than either MF or TL. Brainstem compression by the tumor was associated with longer LOS as were diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and peripheral vascular disease (PVD). For all discharges, the 40 to 50- and 50 to 60-year-old subgroups had significantly shorter LOS than the 70-years-and-older patients. For the 92% of patients routinely discharged, there was a significantly shorter LOS in the 40 to 50-year-olds compared to the 70-years-and-older patients. There was a significant shift in surgical approach from RS to TL over the study period. CONCLUSION: Over 90% of VS microsurgery patients were routinely discharged with a median hospital LOS of 3.2 days, both of which are consistent with published data. There is an inverse relationship between age and LOS with patients older than 70 years having significantly longer LOS. Brainstem compression, COPD, PVD, and the RS approach negatively affect LOS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Quality Improvement in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery: Developing Registry-Enabled Quality Measures From Guidelines for Cerumen Impaction and Allergic Rhinitis Through a Transparent and Systematic Process.

BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE: Quality measurement can drive improvement in clinical care and allow for easy reporting of quality care by clinicians, but creating quality measures is a time-consuming and costly process. ECRI (formerly Emergency Care Research Institute) has pioneered a process to support systematic translation of clinical practice guidelines into electronic quality measures using a transparent and reproducible pathway. This process could be used to augment or support the development of electronic quality measures of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO-HNSF) and others as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services transitions from the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) to the MIPS Value Pathways for quality reporting. METHODS: We used a transparent and reproducible process to create electronic quality measures based on recommendations from 2 AAO-HNSF clinical practice guidelines (cerumen impaction and allergic rhinitis). Steps of this process include source material review, electronic content extraction, logic development, implementation barrier analysis, content encoding and structuring, and measure formalization. Proposed measures then go through the standard publication process for AAO-HNSF measures. RESULTS: The 2 guidelines contained 29 recommendation statements, of which 7 were translated into electronic quality measures and published. Intermediate products of the guideline conversion process facilitated development and were retained to support review, updating, and transparency. Of the 7 initially published quality measures, 6 were approved as 2018 MIPS measures, and 2 continued to demonstrate a gap in care after a year of data collection. CONCLUSION: Developing high-quality, registry-enabled measures from guidelines via a rigorous reproducible process is feasible. The streamlined process was effective in producing quality measures for publication in a timely fashion. Efforts to better identify gaps in care and more quickly recognize recommendations that would not translate well into quality measures could further streamline this process.

Clinical Consensus Statement: Ankyloglossia in Children.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and seek consensus on issues and controversies related to ankyloglossia and upper lip tie in children by using established methodology for American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery clinical consensus statements. METHODS: An expert panel of pediatric otolaryngologists was assembled with nominated representatives of otolaryngology organizations. The target population was children aged 0 to 18 years, including breastfeeding infants. A modified Delphi method was used to distill expert opinion into clinical statements that met a standardized definition of consensus, per established methodology published by the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. RESULTS: After 3 iterative Delphi method surveys of 89 total statements, 41 met the predefined criteria for consensus, 17 were near consensus, and 28 did not reach consensus. The clinical statements were grouped into several categories for the purposes of presentation and discussion: ankyloglossia (general), buccal tie, ankyloglossia and sleep apnea, ankyloglossia and breastfeeding, frenotomy indications and informed consent, frenotomy procedure, ankyloglossia in older children, and maxillary labial frenulum. CONCLUSION: This expert panel reached consensus on several statements that clarify the diagnosis, management, and treatment of ankyloglossia in children 0 to 18 years of age. Lack of consensus on other statements likely reflects knowledge gaps and lack of evidence regarding the diagnosis, management, and treatment of ankyloglossia. Expert panel consensus may provide helpful information for otolaryngologists treating patients with ankyloglossia.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Ménière's Disease.

OBJECTIVE: Ménière's disease (MD) is a clinical condition defined by spontaneous vertigo attacks (each lasting 20 minutes to 12 hours) with documented low- to midfrequency sensorineural hearing loss in the affected ear before, during, or after one of the episodes of vertigo. It also presents with fluctuating aural symptoms (hearing loss, tinnitus, or ear fullness) in the affected ear. The underlying etiology of MD is not completely clear, yet it has been associated with inner ear fluid (endolymph) volume increases, culminating in episodic ear symptoms (vertigo, fluctuating hearing loss, tinnitus, and aural fullness). Physical examination findings are often unremarkable, and audiometric testing may or may not show low- to midfrequency sensorineural hearing loss. Conventional imaging, if performed, is also typically normal. The goals of MD treatment are to prevent or reduce vertigo severity and frequency; relieve or prevent hearing loss, tinnitus, and aural fullness; and improve quality of life. Treatment approaches to MD are many and typically include modifications of lifestyle factors (eg, diet) and medical, surgical, or a combination of therapies. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to improve the quality of the diagnostic workup and treatment outcomes of MD. To achieve this purpose, the goals of this guideline are to use the best available published scientific and/or clinical evidence to enhance diagnostic accuracy and appropriate therapeutic interventions (medical and surgical) while reducing unindicated diagnostic testing and/or imaging.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Ménière's Disease Executive Summary.

OBJECTIVE: Ménière's disease (MD) is a clinical condition defined by spontaneous vertigo attacks (each lasting 20 minutes to 12 hours) with documented low- to midfrequency sensorineural hearing loss in the affected ear before, during, or after one of the episodes of vertigo. It also presents with fluctuating aural symptoms (hearing loss, tinnitus, or ear fullness) in the affected ear. The underlying etiology of MD is not completely clear, yet it has been associated with inner ear fluid volume increases, culminating in episodic ear symptoms (vertigo, fluctuating hearing loss, tinnitus, and aural fullness). Physical examination findings are often unremarkable, and audiometric testing may or may not show low- to midfrequency sensorineural hearing loss. Imaging, if performed, is also typically normal. The goals of MD treatment are to prevent or reduce vertigo severity and frequency; relieve or prevent hearing loss, tinnitus, and aural fullness; and improve quality of life. Treatment approaches to MD are many, and approaches typically include modifications of lifestyle factors (eg, diet) and medical, surgical, or a combination of therapies. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to improve the quality of the diagnostic workup and treatment outcomes of MD. To achieve this purpose, the goals of this guideline are to use the best available published scientific and/or clinical evidence to enhance diagnostic accuracy and appropriate therapeutic interventions (medical and surgical) while reducing unindicated diagnostic testing and/or imaging.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Sudden Hearing Loss (Update) Executive Summary.

OBJECTIVE: Sudden hearing loss is a frightening symptom that often prompts an urgent or emergent visit to a health care provider. It is frequently, but not universally, accompanied by tinnitus and/or vertigo. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss affects 5 to 27 per 100,000 people annually, with about 66,000 new cases per year in the United States. This guideline update provides evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis, management, and follow-up of patients who present with sudden hearing loss. It focuses on sudden sensorineural hearing loss in adult patients aged 18 and over and primarily on those with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Prompt recognition and management of sudden sensorineural hearing loss may improve hearing recovery and patient quality of life. The guideline update is intended for all clinicians who diagnose or manage adult patients who present with sudden hearing loss. PURPOSE: The purpose of this guideline update is to provide clinicians with evidence-based recommendations in evaluating patients with sudden hearing loss and sudden sensorineural hearing loss, with particular emphasis on managing idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. The guideline update group recognized that patients enter the health care system with sudden hearing loss as a nonspecific primary complaint. Therefore, the initial recommendations of this guideline update address distinguishing sensorineural hearing loss from conductive hearing loss at the time of presentation with hearing loss. They also clarify the need to identify rare, nonidiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss to help separate those patients from those with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss, who are the target population for the therapeutic interventions that make up the bulk of the guideline update. By focusing on opportunities for quality improvement, this guideline should improve diagnostic accuracy, facilitate prompt intervention, decrease variations in management, reduce unnecessary tests and imaging procedures, and improve hearing and rehabilitative outcomes for affected patients. METHODS: Consistent with the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation's Clinical Practice Guideline Development Manual, Third Edition, the guideline update group was convened with representation from the disciplines of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, otology, neurotology, family medicine, audiology, emergency medicine, neurology, radiology, advanced practice nursing, and consumer advocacy. A systematic review of the literature was performed, and the prior clinical practice guideline on sudden hearing loss was reviewed in detail. Key action statements (KASs) were updated with new literature, and evidence profiles were brought up to the current standard. Research needs identified in the original clinical practice guideline and data addressing them were reviewed. Current research needs were identified and delineated. RESULTS: The guideline update group made strong recommendations for the following: clinicians should distinguish sensorineural hearing loss from conductive hearing loss when a patient first presents with sudden hearing loss (KAS 1); clinicians should educate patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss about the natural history of the condition, the benefits and risks of medical interventions, and the limitations of existing evidence regarding efficacy (KAS 7); and clinicians should counsel patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss who have residual hearing loss and/or tinnitus about the possible benefits of audiological rehabilitation and other supportive measures (KAS 13). These strong recommendations were modified from the initial clinical practice guideline for clarity and timing of intervention. The guideline update group made strong recommendation against the following: clinicians should not order routine computed tomography of the head in the initial evaluation of a patient with presumptive sudden sensorineural hearing loss (KAS 3); clinicians should not obtain routine laboratory tests in patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss (KAS 5); and clinicians should not routinely prescribe antivirals, thrombolytics, vasodilators, or vasoactive substances to patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss (KAS 11). The guideline update group made recommendations for the following: clinicians should assess patients with presumptive sudden sensorineural hearing loss through history and physical examination for bilateral sudden hearing loss, recurrent episodes of sudden hearing loss, and/or focal neurologic findings (KAS 2); in patients with sudden hearing loss, clinicians should obtain, or refer to a clinician who can obtain, audiometry as soon as possible (within 14 days of symptom onset) to confirm the diagnosis of sudden sensorineural hearing loss (KAS 4); clinicians should evaluate patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss for retrocochlear pathology by obtaining a magnetic resonance imaging or auditory brainstem response (KAS 6); clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, intratympanic steroid therapy when patients have incomplete recovery from sudden sensorineural hearing loss 2 to 6 weeks after onset of symptoms (KAS 10); and clinicians should obtain follow-up audiometric evaluation for patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss at the conclusion of treatment and within 6 months of completion of treatment (KAS 12). These recommendations were clarified in terms of timing of intervention and audiometry, as well as method of retrocochlear workup. The guideline update group offered the following KASs as options: clinicians may offer corticosteroids as initial therapy to patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss within 2 weeks of symptom onset (KAS 8); clinicians may offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, hyperbaric oxygen therapy combined with steroid therapy within 2 weeks of onset of sudden sensorineural hearing loss (KAS 9a); and clinicians may offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, hyperbaric oxygen therapy combined with steroid therapy as salvage therapy within 1 month of onset of sudden sensorineural hearing loss (KAS 9b). DIFFERENCES FROM PRIOR GUIDELINE: Incorporation of new evidence profiles to include quality improvement opportunities, confidence in the evidence, and differences of opinion Included 10 clinical practice guidelines, 29 new systematic reviews, and 36 new randomized controlled trials Highlights the urgency of evaluation and initiation of treatment, if treatment is offered, by emphasizing the time from symptom occurrence Clarification of terminology by changing potentially unclear statements; use of the term sudden sensorineural hearing loss to mean idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss to emphasize that over 90% of sudden sensorineural hearing loss is idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss and to avoid confusion in nomenclature for the reader Changes to the key action statements (KASs) from the original guideline: KAS 1: When a patient first presents with sudden hearing loss, conductive hearing loss should be distinguished from sensorineural. KAS 2: The utility of history and physical examination when assessing for modifying factors is emphasized. KAS 3: The word routine is added to clarify that this statement addresses a nontargeted head computed tomography scan that is often ordered in the emergency room setting for patients presenting with sudden hearing loss. It does not refer to targeted scans such as a temporal bone computed tomography scan to assess for temporal bone pathology. KAS 4: The importance of audiometric confirmation of hearing status as soon as possible and within 14 days of symptom onset is emphasized. KAS 5: New studies were added to confirm the lack of benefit of nontargeted laboratory testing in sudden sensorineural hearing loss. KAS 6: Audiometric follow-up is excluded as a reasonable workup for retrocochlear pathology. Magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography scan if magnetic resonance imaging cannot be done, or, secondarily, auditory brainstem response evaluation are the modalities recommended. A time frame for such testing is not specified, nor is it specified which clinician should be ordering this workup; however, it is implied that it would be the general or subspecialty otolaryngologist. KAS 7: The importance of shared decision making is highlighted, and salient points are emphasized. KAS 8: The option for corticosteroid intervention within 2 weeks of symptom onset is emphasized. KAS 9: Changed to KAS 9a and 9b; hyperbaric oxygen therapy remains an option but only when combined with steroid therapy for either initial treatment (9a) or for salvage therapy (9b). The timing is within 2 weeks of onset for initial therapy and within 1 month of onset of sudden sensorineural hearing loss for salvage therapy. KAS 10: Intratympanic steroid therapy for salvage is recommended within 2 to 6 weeks following onset of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. The time to treatment is defined and emphasized. KAS 11: Antioxidants were removed from the list of interventions that the clinical practice guideline recommends against using. KAS 12: Follow-up audiometry at conclusion of treatment and also within 6 months posttreatment is added. KAS 13: This statement on audiologic rehabilitation includes patients who have residual hearing loss and/or tinnitus who may benefit from treatment. Addition of an algorithm outlining KASs Enhanced emphasis on patient education and shared decision making with tools provided to assist in the same.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Sudden Hearing Loss (Update).

OBJECTIVE: Sudden hearing loss is a frightening symptom that often prompts an urgent or emergent visit to a health care provider. It is frequently but not universally accompanied by tinnitus and/or vertigo. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss affects 5 to 27 per 100,000 people annually, with about 66,000 new cases per year in the United States. This guideline update provides evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis, management, and follow-up of patients who present with sudden hearing loss. It focuses on sudden sensorineural hearing loss in adult patients aged ≥18 years and primarily on those with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Prompt recognition and management of sudden sensorineural hearing loss may improve hearing recovery and patient quality of life. The guideline update is intended for all clinicians who diagnose or manage adult patients who present with sudden hearing loss. PURPOSE: The purpose of this guideline update is to provide clinicians with evidence-based recommendations in evaluating patients with sudden hearing loss and sudden sensorineural hearing loss, with particular emphasis on managing idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. The guideline update group recognized that patients enter the health care system with sudden hearing loss as a nonspecific primary complaint. Therefore, the initial recommendations of this guideline update address distinguishing sensorineural hearing loss from conductive hearing loss at the time of presentation with hearing loss. They also clarify the need to identify rare, nonidiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss to help separate those patients from those with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss, who are the target population for the therapeutic interventions that make up the bulk of the guideline update. By focusing on opportunities for quality improvement, this guideline should improve diagnostic accuracy, facilitate prompt intervention, decrease variations in management, reduce unnecessary tests and imaging procedures, and improve hearing and rehabilitative outcomes for affected patients. METHODS: Consistent with the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation's "Clinical Practice Guideline Development Manual, Third Edition" (Rosenfeld et al. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;148[1]:S1-S55), the guideline update group was convened with representation from the disciplines of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, otology, neurotology, family medicine, audiology, emergency medicine, neurology, radiology, advanced practice nursing, and consumer advocacy. A systematic review of the literature was performed, and the prior clinical practice guideline on sudden hearing loss was reviewed in detail. Key Action Statements (KASs) were updated with new literature, and evidence profiles were brought up to the current standard. Research needs identified in the original clinical practice guideline and data addressing them were reviewed. Current research needs were identified and delineated. RESULTS: The guideline update group made strong recommendations for the following: (KAS 1) Clinicians should distinguish sensorineural hearing loss from conductive hearing loss when a patient first presents with sudden hearing loss. (KAS 7) Clinicians should educate patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss about the natural history of the condition, the benefits and risks of medical interventions, and the limitations of existing evidence regarding efficacy. (KAS 13) Clinicians should counsel patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss who have residual hearing loss and/or tinnitus about the possible benefits of audiologic rehabilitation and other supportive measures. These strong recommendations were modified from the initial clinical practice guideline for clarity and timing of intervention. The guideline update group made strong recommendations against the following: (KAS 3) Clinicians should not order routine computed tomography of the head in the initial evaluation of a patient with presumptive sudden sensorineural hearing loss. (KAS 5) Clinicians should not obtain routine laboratory tests in patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss. (KAS 11) Clinicians should not routinely prescribe antivirals, thrombolytics, vasodilators, or vasoactive substances to patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss. The guideline update group made recommendations for the following: (KAS 2) Clinicians should assess patients with presumptive sudden sensorineural hearing loss through history and physical examination for bilateral sudden hearing loss, recurrent episodes of sudden hearing loss, and/or focal neurologic findings. (KAS 4) In patients with sudden hearing loss, clinicians should obtain, or refer to a clinician who can obtain, audiometry as soon as possible (within 14 days of symptom onset) to confirm the diagnosis of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. (KAS 6) Clinicians should evaluate patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss for retrocochlear pathology by obtaining magnetic resonance imaging or auditory brainstem response. (KAS 10) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, intratympanic steroid therapy when patients have incomplete recovery from sudden sensorineural hearing loss 2 to 6 weeks after onset of symptoms. (KAS 12) Clinicians should obtain follow-up audiometric evaluation for patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss at the conclusion of treatment and within 6 months of completion of treatment. These recommendations were clarified in terms of timing of intervention and audiometry and method of retrocochlear workup. The guideline update group offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 8) Clinicians may offer corticosteroids as initial therapy to patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss within 2 weeks of symptom onset. (KAS 9a) Clinicians may offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, hyperbaric oxygen therapy combined with steroid therapy within 2 weeks of onset of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. (KAS 9b) Clinicians may offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, hyperbaric oxygen therapy combined with steroid therapy as salvage therapy within 1 month of onset of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. DIFFERENCES FROM PRIOR GUIDELINE: Incorporation of new evidence profiles to include quality improvement opportunities, confidence in the evidence, and differences of opinion Included 10 clinical practice guidelines, 29 new systematic reviews, and 36 new randomized controlled trials Highlights the urgency of evaluation and initiation of treatment, if treatment is offered, by emphasizing the time from symptom occurrence Clarification of terminology by changing potentially unclear statements; use of the term sudden sensorineural hearing loss to mean idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss to emphasize that >90% of sudden sensorineural hearing loss is idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss and to avoid confusion in nomenclature for the reader Changes to the KASs from the original guideline: KAS 1-When a patient first presents with sudden hearing loss, conductive hearing loss should be distinguished from sensorineural. KAS 2-The utility of history and physical examination when assessing for modifying factors is emphasized. KAS 3-The word "routine" is added to clarify that this statement addresses nontargeted head computerized tomography scan that is often ordered in the emergency room setting for patients presenting with sudden hearing loss. It does not refer to targeted scans, such as temporal bone computerized tomography scan, to assess for temporal bone pathology. KAS 4-The importance of audiometric confirmation of hearing status as soon as possible and within 14 days of symptom onset is emphasized. KAS 5-New studies were added to confirm the lack of benefit of nontargeted laboratory testing in sudden sensorineural hearing loss. KAS 6-Audiometric follow-up is excluded as a reasonable workup for retrocochlear pathology. Magnetic resonance imaging, computerized tomography scan if magnetic resonance imaging cannot be done, and, secondarily, auditory brainstem response evaluation are the modalities recommended. A time frame for such testing is not specified, nor is it specified which clinician should be ordering this workup; however, it is implied that it would be the general or subspecialty otolaryngologist. KAS 7-The importance of shared decision making is highlighted, and salient points are emphasized. KAS 8-The option for corticosteroid intervention within 2 weeks of symptom onset is emphasized. KAS 9-Changed to KAS 9A and 9B. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy remains an option but only when combined with steroid therapy for either initial treatment (9A) or salvage therapy (9B). The timing of initial therapy is within 2 weeks of onset, and that of salvage therapy is within 1 month of onset of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. KAS 10-Intratympanic steroid therapy for salvage is recommended within 2 to 6 weeks following onset of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. The time to treatment is defined and emphasized. KAS 11-Antioxidants were removed from the list of interventions that the clinical practice guideline recommends against using. KAS 12-Follow-up audiometry at conclusion of treatment and also within 6 months posttreatment is added. KAS 13-This statement on audiologic rehabilitation includes patients who have residual hearing loss and/or tinnitus who may benefit from treatment. Addition of an algorithm outlining KASs Enhanced emphasis on patient education and shared decision making with tools provided to assist in same.

Comparison of Transmastoid and Middle Fossa Approaches for Superior Canal Dehiscence Repair: A Multi-institutional Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes for patients undergoing a transmastoid approach versus a middle fossa craniotomy approach with plugging and/or resurfacing for repair of superior semicircular canal dehiscence. Outcome measures include symptom resolution, hearing, operative time, hospital stay, complications, and revision rates. STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective comparative cohort study. SETTINGS: Three tertiary neurotology centers. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: All adult patients undergoing repair for superior canal dehiscence between 2006 and 2017 at 3 neurotology centers were included. Demographics and otologic history collected by chart review. Imaging, audiometric data, and vestibular evoked myogenic potential measurements were also collected for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 68 patients (74 ears) were included in the study. Twenty-one patients underwent middle fossa craniotomy repair (mean age, 47.9 years), and 47 underwent transmastoid repair (mean age, 48.0 years). There were no significant differences in age or sex distribution between the groups. The transmastoid group experienced a significantly shorter duration of hospitalization and lower recurrence rate as compared with the middle fossa craniotomy group (3.8% vs 33%). Both groups experienced improvement in noise-induced vertigo, autophony, pulsatile tinnitus, and nonspecific vertigo. There was no significant difference among symptom resolution between groups. Additionally, there was no significant difference in audiometric outcomes between the groups. CONCLUSION: Both the transmastoid approach and the middle fossa craniotomy approach for repair of superior canal dehiscence offer symptom resolution with minimal risk. The transmastoid approach was associated with shorter hospital stays and lower recurrence rate as compared with the middle fossa craniotomy approach.

Systematic Review of Facial Nerve Outcomes After Middle Fossa Decompression and Transmastoid Decompression for Bell's Palsy With Complete Facial Paralysis.

OBJECTIVES: The surgical timing and approach for patients with Bell's palsy and complete facial paralysis is controversial. A previous meta-analysis demonstrated no benefit from surgical decompression, however, only transmastoid decompression (TMD) was investigated. No study has evaluated both the outcomes of TMD and middle fossa decompression (MFD). STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic literature search identifying all studies meeting inclusion criteria and published between 1985 and 2015 was performed. Final House-Brackmann (HB) scores were calculated and compared for TMD, MFD, and medical controls. A meta-analysis was performed to compare MFD less than or equal to 14 days versus MFD more than 14 days, TMD versus medical controls, and surgical therapy (combined MFD and TMD) versus medical controls. Observational studies without a control arm were excluded from the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Average HB scores for MFD less than or equal to 14 days was 1.8, MFD more than 14 days was 2.75, and MFD medical controls was 2.4. For TMD average HB was 2.3 and for TMD medical controls average HB was 2.4. 75% MFD were performed within 14 days of onset while TMD was performed between 15 and 120 days. Meta-analysis demonstrated significantly better facial nerve outcomes for MFD performed less than or equal to 14 days versus more than 14 days (p < 0.001), but no difference between TMD versus medical controls (p = 0.78) or surgical therapy versus medical controls (p = 0.58). CONCLUSION: MFD performed within 14 days of symptom onset results in better facial nerve outcomes than MFD performed after 14 days. TMD does not offer improved outcomes over medical management however decompression was only offered after 15 days of symptom onset.

The Role of Hyperbaric Oxygen as Salvage Therapy for Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate hearing outcomes after salvage therapy with hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2) for the treatment of sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL). STUDY DESIGN: Matched control retrospective case series. SETTING: Tertiary neurotology referral center. PATIENTS: Thirty-six patients (>18 years) diagnosed with SSNHL. INTERVENTION: Patients received initial therapy with oral and/or intratympanic (IT) steroids with an incomplete response. Eighteen patients underwent salvage therapy with IT steroids and HBO2 (group 1). Eighteen matched controls underwent salvage therapy with IT steroids alone (group 2). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure was improvement in pure tone average (PTA) and word recognition score (WRS). Complications as a result of therapy were also monitored. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age, gender, or hearing between the 2 groups ( P > .05). There was no significant difference in mean post-treatment PTA between group 1 (60.3 dB) and group 2 (53.2 dB). There were no significant difference in mean post-treatment WRS between group 1 (42%) and group 2 (51%). Serviceable hearing was defined as a minimum WRS of 50%. Thirty-three percent in group 1 and 42% in group 2 went from nonserviceable hearing to serviceable hearing ( P > .05). PTA and WRS change scores were not significantly affected by age, gender, form of initial treatment, or pre-treatment PTA and WRS. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated no significant difference in hearing outcomes between patients receiving salvage therapy with HBO2 and IT steroids compared to patients receiving IT steroids alone. Larger, prospective randomized trials are needed to better define the role of HBO2 as salvage therapy for SSNHL.

Use of Neural Response Telemetry for Pediatric Cochlear Implants: Current Practice.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate usage trends of neural response telemetry (NRT) in cochlear implant centers across the nation and assess reported benefits of intraoperative NRT for pediatric cochlear implant recipients. STUDY DESIGN: Survey. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: All US cochlear implant centers (n = 110). METHODS: A 15-question multiple-choice survey was distributed electronically to all centers. The survey captured demographic information of all centers, practice patterns surrounding the use of NRT, and the extent to which intraoperative NRT is of benefit. RESULTS: Thirty-two invited participants (29%) completed the survey. A majority of participants reported practicing in an academic center (66%), followed by a hospital setting (19%) and private practice (16%). Seventy-two percent of survey participants reported using NRT for pediatric cochlear implant recipients. Sixty-three percent felt it improved the ability to program at initial activation, and 50% of participants felt that NRT improves satisfaction at initial activation. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that a majority of surgeons use intraoperative NRT for pediatric cochlear implantation as an additional measure to ensure appropriate electrode placement and improve device activation. Larger studies are needed to better establish the relationship between intraoperative NRT and postoperative outcomes and justify the additional costs associated with intraoperative NRT.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Hoarseness (Dysphonia) (Update) Executive Summary.

Objective This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on treating patients presenting with dysphonia, which is characterized by altered vocal quality, pitch, loudness, or vocal effort that impairs communication and/or quality of life. Dysphonia affects nearly one-third of the population at some point in its life. This guideline applies to all age groups evaluated in a setting where dysphonia would be identified or managed. It is intended for all clinicians who are likely to diagnose and treat patients with dysphonia. Purpose The primary purpose of this guideline is to improve the quality of care for patients with dysphonia, based on current best evidence. Expert consensus to fill evidence gaps, when used, is explicitly stated and supported with a detailed evidence profile for transparency. Specific objectives of the guideline are to reduce inappropriate variations in care, produce optimal health outcomes, and minimize harm. For this guideline update, the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation selected a panel representing the fields of advanced practice nursing, bronchoesophagology, consumer advocacy, family medicine, geriatric medicine, internal medicine, laryngology, neurology, otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, pediatrics, professional voice, pulmonology, and speech-language pathology. Action Statements The guideline update group made strong recommendations for the following key action statements (KASs): (1) Clinicians should assess the patient with dysphonia by history and physical examination to identify factors where expedited laryngeal evaluation is indicated. These include but are not limited to recent surgical procedures involving the head, neck, or chest; recent endotracheal intubation; presence of concomitant neck mass; respiratory distress or stridor; history of tobacco abuse; and whether the patient is a professional voice user. (2) Clinicians should advocate voice therapy for patients with dysphonia from a cause amenable to voice therapy. The guideline update group made recommendations for the following KASs: (1) Clinicians should identify dysphonia in a patient with altered voice quality, pitch, loudness, or vocal effort that impairs communication or reduces quality of life (QOL). (2) Clinicians should assess the patient with dysphonia by history and physical examination for underlying causes of dysphonia and factors that modify management. (3) Clinicians should perform laryngoscopy, or refer to a clinician who can perform laryngoscopy, when dysphonia fails to resolve or improve within 4 weeks or irrespective of duration if a serious underlying cause is suspected. (4) Clinicians should perform diagnostic laryngoscopy, or refer to a clinician who can perform diagnostic laryngoscopy, before prescribing voice therapy and document/communicate the results to the speech-language pathologist (SLP). (5) Clinicians should advocate for surgery as a therapeutic option for patients with dysphonia with conditions amenable to surgical intervention, such as suspected malignancy, symptomatic benign vocal fold lesions that do not respond to conservative management, or glottic insufficiency. (6) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, botulinum toxin injections for the treatment of dysphonia caused by spasmodic dysphonia and other types of laryngeal dystonia. (7) Clinicians should inform patients with dysphonia about control/preventive measures. (8) Clinicians should document resolution, improvement or worsened symptoms of dysphonia, or change in QOL of patients with dysphonia after treatment or observation. The guideline update group made a strong recommendation against 1 action: (1) Clinicians should not routinely prescribe antibiotics to treat dysphonia. The guideline update group made recommendations against other actions: (1) Clinicians should not obtain computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for patients with a primary voice complaint prior to visualization of the larynx. (2) Clinicians should not prescribe antireflux medications to treat isolated dysphonia, based on symptoms alone attributed to suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) or laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), without visualization of the larynx. (3) Clinicians should not routinely prescribe corticosteroids in patients with dysphonia prior to visualization of the larynx. The policy level for the following recommendation about laryngoscopy at any time was an option: (1) Clinicians may perform diagnostic laryngoscopy at any time in a patient with dysphonia. Differences from Prior Guideline (1) Incorporating new evidence profiles to include the role of patient preferences, confidence in the evidence, differences of opinion, quality improvement opportunities, and any exclusion to which the action statement does not apply (2) Inclusion of 3 new guidelines, 16 new systematic reviews, and 4 new randomized controlled trials (3) Inclusion of a consumer advocate on the guideline update group (4) Changes to 9 KASs from the original guideline (5) New KAS 3 (escalation of care) and KAS 13 (outcomes) (6) Addition of an algorithm outlining KASs for patients with dysphonia.