Recent advances in Otology: Current landscape and future direction

Hearing is an essential sensation, and its deterioration leads to a significant decrease in the quality of life. Thus, great efforts have been made by otologists to preserve and recover hearing. Our knowledge regarding the field of otology has progressed with advances in technology, and otologists have sought to develop novel approaches in the field of otologic surgery to achieve higher hearing recovery or preservation rates. This requires knowledge regarding the anatomy of the temporal bone and the physiology of hearing. Basic research in the field of otology has progressed with advances in molecular biology and genetics. This review summarizes the current views and recent advances in the field of otology and otologic surgery, especially from the viewpoint of young Japanese clinician-scientists, and presents the perspectives and future directions for several topics in the field of otology. This review will aid next-generation researchers in understanding the recent advances and future challenges in the field of otology.

Influence of depressive disorders, stress, and personality traits on quality of life after cochlear implantation

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine whether preoperative depressiveness, stress, and personality influence quality of life (QOL) after cochlear implant (CI) surgery.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 79 patients undergoing CI surgery were evaluated preoperatively and 12 months postoperatively. Disease-specific QOL was assessed with the Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire (NCIQ) and general QOL with the WHOQOL-BREF. Depressiveness and stress were assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-D). The Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was used to classify comorbidities. The Big Five Personality Test (B5T) was used to assess the basic personality dimensions. Speech comprehension was evaluated in quiet with the Freiburg monosyllable test and in noise with the Oldenburg sentence test.

RESULTS

After CI surgery, the total NCIQ score improved significantly (Δ 17.1 ± 14.7, p < 0.001). General QOL (WHOQOL-BREF, Δ 0.4 ± 9.9, p = 0.357), stress (Δ 0.25 ± 3.21, p = 0.486), and depressiveness (Δ 0.52 ± 3.21, p = 0.121) were unaffected by CI surgery. Patients without elevated depressiveness (p < 0.01) or stress (p < 0.001) had significantly better total NCIQ scores. The results of the multiple regression analyses show that, after adjusting for the CCI, personality, age, and mental health stress (ß = - 0.495, p < 0.001) was significantly associated with postoperative NCIQ outcome scores. Depressiveness and neuroticism had the strongest influence on the generic QOL (ß = - 0.286 and ß = - 0.277, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Stress symptoms and personality traits are significant predictive factors for disease-specific QOL, as well as hearing status. This should be considered in the preoperative consultation and in optimizing the rehabilitation process.

Influence of cochlear implantation on the working ability of hearing-impaired patients: A prospective study on potential influencing factors

PURPOSE

This study evaluates the effect of cochlear implantation (CI) on work ability. The influences of quality of life (QOL), age, mental health, and hearing were analyzed.

METHODS

Seventy-nine patients undergoing CI surgery were evaluated preoperatively and 12 months postoperatively. Work ability was evaluated using the Work Ability Index (WAI). QOL was assessed with the Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire (NCIQ) and the WHOQOL-BREF. Mental health was assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire.

RESULTS

The WAI was unaffected by CI (Δ 0.8 ± 6.8, p = 0.42). No significant changes in WAI were observed for employees (Δ - 1.1 ± 5.7, p = 0.25) and pensioners (Δ -0.4 ± 7.8, p = 0.73). Patients without elevated depressiveness, stress, or somatoform symptoms had significantly better WAI.The multiple regression analyses show that WHOQOL-BREF (ß = 0.49, p ≤ 0.001), age (ß = -0.34, p ≤ 0.001), and depressiveness (ß = 0.33, p = 0.04) were significantly associated with WAI. In the employee group, the NCIQ (ß = 0.58, p = 0.008) had the strongest association with the WAI.

CONCLUSION

Age, mental health, and QOL are predictive factors for work ability. This should be considered in the consultation and the rehabilitation process.

Masked Speech Perception with Bone Conduction Device, Contralateral Routing of Signals Hearing Aid, and Cochlear Implant Use in Adults with Single-Sided Deafness: A Prospective Hearing Device Comparison using a Unified Testing Framework

INTRODUCTION

For the treatment of single-sided deafness (SSD), common treatment choices include a contralateral routing of signals (CROS) hearing aid, a bone conduction device (BCD), and a cochlear implant (CI). The primary aim of this study was to compare speech understanding in noise and binaural benefits in adults with postlingual SSD between preoperative unaided baseline, preoperative CROS and BCD trial devices, and CI, following recommendations from a consensus protocol. In addition, we investigated the effect of masker type on speech understanding.

METHODS

This was a prospective study with twelve participants. Binaural effects of head shadow, squelch, summation, and spatial release from masking were assessed by measuring speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in five different spatial target-masker configurations using two different maskers: two-talker babble (TTB), and speech-shaped noise (SSN). Preoperatively, participants were assessed unaided and with CROS and BCD trial devices. After cochlear implantation, participants were assessed at 1, 3, and 6 months post-activation.

RESULTS

For TTB, significant improvements in SRT with a CI relative to preoperatively unaided were found in all spatial configurations. With CI at 6 months, median benefits were 7.8 dB in SSSDNAH and 5.1 dB in S0NAH (head shadow), 3.4 dB in S0N0 (summation), and 4.6 dB in S0NSSD and 5.1 dB in SAHNSSD (squelch). CROS yielded a significant head shadow benefit of 2.4 dB in SSSDNAH and a significant deterioration in squelch of 2.5 dB in S0NSSD and SAHNSSD, but no summation effect. With BCD, there was a significant summation benefit of 1.5 dB, but no head shadow nor squelch effect. For SSN, significant improvements in SRT with CI compared to preoperatively unaided were found in three spatial configurations. Median benefits with CI at 6 months were: 8.5 dB in SSSDNAH and 4.6 dB in S0NAH (head shadow), 1.4 dB in S0N0 (summation), but no squelch. CROS showed a significant head shadow benefit of 1.7 dB in SSSDNAH, but no summation effect, and a significant deterioration in squelch of 2.9 dB in S0NSSD and 3.2 dB in SAHNSSD. With BCD, no binaural effect was obtained. Longitudinally, we found significant head shadow benefits with a CI in SSSDNAH in both maskers at all postoperative intervals and in S0NAH at 3 and 6 months post-activation.

CONCLUSION

With a CI, a clear benefit for masked speech perception was observed for all binaural effects. Benefits with CROS and BCD were more limited. CROS usage was detrimental to the squelch effect.

The impact of cochlear implantation on quality of life and psychological status in single-sided deafness or asymmetric hearing loss with tinnitus and influencing factors of implantation intention: a preliminary study

PURPOSE

The current study aims to explore the therapeutic effect of cochlear implants (CIs) on tinnitus in patients with single-sided deafness or asymmetric hearing loss (SSD/AHL) as well as the improvement of tinnitus-related quality of life and psychological status. In addition, we also explored whether the levels of quality of life and psychological status was related to the patient's implantation intention.

METHODS

Seven patients decided to receive cochlear implantation. Before and after implantation, they completed the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Tinnitus Questionnaire (TQ) to assess tinnitus severity, the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ), and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire (SF-36) to assess the quality of life, the Simplified Coping Style Questionnaire (SCSQ) to assess psychological status. The other 8 SSD patients refused cochlear implantation. Their scores of the above questionnaires were compared with those of patients received implantation.

RESULTS

Six months after cochlear implantations, the tinnitus perception, loudness, and annoyance significantly decreased compared to that before implantation. In terms of quality of life and physiological status, no statistically significant changes were detected in SSQ, SF-36, and SCSQ measurements. The score of annoyance subcategory of VAS and all subcategories of SSQ of patients refused implantation were better than those of implanted patients before implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that CIs can significantly reduce tinnitus severity. Patients refused implantation had better status in the annoyance of VAS and all subcategories of SSQ scores than those received implantation.

[Cochlear implant and tinnitus]

Cochlear implant (CI) treatment is now established as a successful standard of care for auditory rehabilitation of profoundly deaf or severe hearing loss patients. CI candidates with tinnitus also benefit from improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and tinnitus burden. Current CI indications include bilateral (double-sided) profound hearing loss and deafness (DSD), unilateral (single-sided) deafness (SSD), and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL). The new and expanded indications for cochlear implants result in different healthcare situations, which may also be associated with differences in tinnitus burden before and after CI treatment. In this article, we discuss the prevalence of tinnitus in different patient groups and the influence of CI on tinnitus prevalence and severity in these groups. In addition, further therapeutic options for tinnitus suppression based on the CI principle are presented, including the development of an anti-tinnitus implant (proof of concept).

[Prospective comparative analysis of cochlear implant patients with single-sided deafness and asymmetric hearing loss with regard to health-related quality of life, tinnitus distress and psychological comorbidities]

BACKGROUND

Patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) are increasingly being treated with cochlear implants (CI) due to the demonstrated improvements in auditory abilities and quality of life. To date, there are few published studies in which these two groups are comparatively studied. The aim of the current study was to examine which factors differ between those two patient groups, especially preoperatively.

METHODS

A secondary analysis of the previously published raw data of 66 prospectively recruited CI patients (21 SSD/45 AHL) was performed. In addition to the hearing outcome, tinnitus distress (tinnitus questionnaire), health-related quality of life (Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire, NCIQ), stress (Perceived Stress Questionnaire, PSQ), and psychological comorbidities (General Depression Scale, ADS‑L and Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale, GAD-7) were assessed in SSD and AHL patients pre- and postoperatively.

RESULTS

Preoperatively, SSD patients showed significantly higher scores in the NCIQ subdomains "elementary" and "advanced sound perception" than the AHL group. Stress (PSQ) and anxiety symptoms (GAD-7) were significantly higher preoperatively in SSD patients than in AHL patients. After CI, these differences were strongly reduced, with minimal differences being detectable between the groups in the investigated domains postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

SSD and AHL patients differ significantly preoperatively in terms of their subjective hearing assessment and psychosocial parameters. In SSD patients, psychological stress factors may have a stronger impact on the quality of life than in AHL patients. These aspects should be taken into account in the preoperative counseling and postoperative rehabilitation.

Cochlear Implantation Outcomes in Adults With Single-Sided Deafness: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess spatial hearing, tinnitus, and quality-of-life outcomes in adults with single-sided deafness (SSD) who underwent cochlear implantation.

DATABASES REVIEWED

PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched from January 2008 to September 2021 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

METHODS

Studies reporting spatial hearing, tinnitus, and quality-of-life outcomes in adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients (≥18 yr old) with SSD were evaluated. Study characteristics, demographic data, spatial hearing (speech recognition in noise, sound source localization), tinnitus (severity, loudness), and quality-of-life outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

From an initial search of 1,147 articles, 36 studies that evaluated CI use in 796 unique adults with SSD (51.3 ± 12.4 yr of age at time of implantation) were included. The mean duration of deafness was 6.2 ± 9.6 years. There was evidence of improvement for speech recognition in noise using different target-to-masker spatial configurations, with the largest benefit observed for target-to-masker configurations assessing head shadow (mean, 1.87-6.2 dB signal-to-noise ratio). Sound source localization, quantified as root-mean-squared error, improved with CI use (mean difference [MD], -25.3 degrees; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], -35.9 to -14.6 degrees; p < 0.001). Also, CI users reported a significant reduction in tinnitus severity as measured with the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (MD, -29.97; 95% CI, -43.9 to -16.1; p < 0.001) and an improvement in spatial hearing abilities as measured with the Spatial, Speech, and Qualities of Hearing questionnaire (MD, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.7 to 2.8; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Cochlear implantation and CI use consistently offer improvements in speech recognition in noise, sound source localization, tinnitus, and perceived quality of life in adults with SSD.

Audiometric and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Single-Sided Deafness Cochlear Implant Recipients Using the CIQOL-35

OBJECTIVE

Describe the effect that cochlear implantation (CI) has on audiometric outcomes and quality of life (QOL) in patients with single-sided deafness (SSD).

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case review.

SETTING

Tertiary university hospital system.

METHODS

Preoperative and postoperative AzBio performance and Cochlear Implant Quality of Life-35 (CIQOL-35) Profile scores in CI patients with SSD were compared, and postoperative measures were compared to those from CI patients without SSD.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients with unilateral CI and contralateral unaided pure-tone averages ≤30 dB were included. The median age was 60.2 (interquartile range [IQR], 50.9-64.9 years), and 7/17 (41%) were women. Median daily use was 8.2 hour (IQR, 5.4-11.9 h). The median preoperative AzBio quiet score in the ear to be implanted was 3% (IQR, 0%-6%). After a median follow-up of 12.0 months, the median postoperative AzBio quiet score was 76% (IQR, 47%-86%) (p < .01). SSD subjects demonstrated statistically significant improvements in median scores on the following CIQOL-35 subdomains following implantation: Entertainment (17 preoperatively vs 21 postoperatively), Listening Effort (12 vs 14), Social (17 vs 22), and Global (28 vs 35; p < .05). SSD patients achieved equal or higher postoperative CIQOL-35 scores in most subdomains (6/7) compared to an age-matched group of non-SSD CI recipients who underwent unilaterally (N = 19) or sequential (N = 6) implantation.

CONCLUSION

SSD CI patients not only demonstrate significant improvements in speech perception testing in the implanted ear but also exhibit improvement in multiple QOL subdomains on the CIQOL-35, the only validated cochlear implant QOL instrument.

Cochlear Implantation in Adults With Single-Sided Deafness: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the clinical outcomes of adult patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) undergoing ipsilateral cochlear implantation.

DATA SOURCE

An electronic search of Medline and Embase articles.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review was performed with a search strategy developed by a licensed librarian to identify studies of adult patients with SSD who underwent ipsilateral cochlear implantation. Articles were managed in Covidence and evaluated by 2 independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed and data were extracted, including patient demographics, etiology of deafness, duration of deafness, and postoperative change in speech recognition, tinnitus, sound localization, and quality of life (QoL). A meta-analysis was performed, and pooled mean differences were calculated for each outcome of interest via random effects models by each outcome, as well as subgroup analyses by the individual clinical score used.

RESULTS

Of 2309 studies identified, 185 full texts were evaluated, and 50 were ultimately included involving 674 patients. Speech perception scores in quiet and noise, tinnitus control, sound localization, and QoL all significantly improved after implantation. Pooled outcomes demonstrated score improvements in speech perception (standardized mean difference [SMD], 2.8 [95% CI, 2.16-3.43]), QoL (SMD, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.45-0.91]), sound localization (SMD, -1.13 [95% CI, -1.68 to -0.57]), and tinnitus score reduction (SMD, -1.32 [95% CI, -1.85 to -0.80]).

CONCLUSIONS

Cochlear implantation in adults with SSD results in significant improvements in speech perception, tinnitus control, sound localization, and QoL.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2

Effects of auditory rehabilitation with cochlear implant on tinnitus prevalence and distress, health-related quality of life, subjective hearing and psychological comorbidities: Comparative analysis of patients with asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), double-sided (bilateral) deafness (DSD), and single-sided (unilateral) deafness (SSD)

Introduction

Auditory rehabilitation with a cochlear implant (CI), in many cases, positively impacts tinnitus. However, it is unclear if the tinnitus-related benefit of CI is equal for patients with various indications for CI. Therefore, this study aimed to determine differences in tinnitus prevalence and distress, health-related quality of life, subjective hearing, perceived stress, and psychological comorbidities between patients diagnosed with asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), single-sided (unilateral) deafness (SSD), and double-sided (bilateral) deafness (DSD) before and six months after cochlear implantation.

Methods

One hundred-one CI candidates were included in this prospective study (39 AHL patients, 23 DSD patients, and 39 SSD patients). The patients completed questionnaires measuring tinnitus distress, health-related quality of life, subjective hearing, perceived stress, and psychological comorbidities before and 6 months after CI.

Results

The prevalence of tinnitus in the entire cohort (80.2% before CI) decreased 6 months after CI to 71.3%. The DSD group had the lowest tinnitus prevalence at both time points. The degree of tinnitus-induced distress decreased significantly in all three groups after CI. Differences in quality of life, subjective hearing, and psychological comorbidities between the groups at the study onset disappeared after CI. Significant correlations existed between anxiety, depression, and tinnitus distress in AHL and SSD but not in DSD patients before and after CI.

Discussion

Our results demonstrate significant differences between the three groups of CI candidates, which might affect the implantation outcome. These differences suggest a need for personalized psychological counseling during the auditory rehabilitation process, focusing on anxiety and depressive symptoms for SSD and AHL patients.

Single-Sided Deafness: Emotional and Social Handicap, Impact on Health Status and Quality of Life, Functional Hearing, and the Effects of Cochlear Implantation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the functional and subjective outcomes in individuals with single-sided deafness (SSD) treated with a cochlear implant (CI).

METHODS

Eighty-one adult CI users with SSD participated in this study. Functional assessments consisted of speech in noise testing and localization. Subjective assessments consisted of the Speech Spatial Quality of Hearing Scale, the Tinnitus Reaction Questionnaire, the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit questionnaire, the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults questionnaire, and the Glasgow Health Status Inventory and the Glasgow Benefit Inventory questionnaires.

RESULTS

SSD has remarkable consequences on quality of life (QoL) and imposes a substantial emotional and social handicap on the individuals. Self-reported QoL improved after CI with tinnitus intrusion significantly reduced as early as 3 months post-CI. A significant improvement was seen in all speech understanding in noise configurations. Localization ability significantly improved with CI on.

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrate that SSD reduces social and psychological QoL and imposes a remarkable level of handicap as per general and specific self-assessments tool. CI provided a significant improvement in function including speech understanding in noise and localization ability, as well as improved QoL and reduced tinnitus significantly in both the early and long terms.

(Even Off-Label) Cochlear Implantation in Single-Sided Deafness and Asymmetric Hearing Loss Results in Measurable Objective and Subjective Benefit

OBJECTIVE

To quantify objective and subjective outcomes in cochlear implant (CI) recipients with asymmetric hearing loss, including single-sided deafness (SSD) whose candidacy was determined on an ear-specific basis when word recognition was 50% or less.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case review.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of CI in cases of SSD and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) has been described in terms of tinnitus suppression, improved speech recognition in quiet and noise, enhanced localization ability, and improved quality of life. However, CI is not yet routinely offered as a top option or standard of care for these individuals. Recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling limits aided word recognition in the ear to be implanted to only 5% in cases of AHL/SSD, which is significantly poorer than 40 to 50%, which is often referenced in cases of bilateral hearing loss. Anecdotal experience suggests that patients with much better preoperative word recognition than 5% can benefit from CI.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of all adult CI candidates, with one ear exhibiting consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word recognition scores at least 50% and one ear not meeting CI candidacy (i.e., CNC word recognition >50%). Outcome variables of interest included word and sentence recognition and subjective handicap questionnaires (hearing, tinnitus, dizziness) and the Speech Spatial Qualities questionnaire.

RESULTS

Statistically and clinically significant improvement in speech understanding (word, sentence, sentence in noise) was noted for both the SSD and AHL groups in the implanted ear. There were statistically and clinically significant subjective improvements noted for both groups on the Hearing Handicap Inventory, the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory, and the Speech Spatial Qualities questionnaire by 1 month after activation. There were no significant differences between the AHL and SSD groups on either objective or subjective measures of the implanted ear. Individual word understanding improved for the majority of recipients across both groups and is not dependent on meeting the FDA criteria of less than 5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Cochlear implantation is a viable option with measurable objective and perceived benefits for recipients with preoperative aided CNC word scores exceeding current FDA labeling. There is no significant difference between the AHL and SSD groups, suggesting that candidacy and outcome expectations should be set based on the ear to be implanted alone, without regard for the ability of the better hearing ear.

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

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

Lateralization Pattern of the Weber Tuning Fork Test in Longstanding Unilateral Profound Hearing Loss: Implications for Cochlear Implantation

The Weber tuning fork test is a standard otologic examination tool in patients with unilateral hearing loss. Sound should typically lateralize to the contralateral side in unilateral sensorineural hearing loss. The observation that the Weber test does not lateralize in some patients with longstanding unilateral deafness has been previously described but remains poorly understood. In the present study, we conducted a retrospective analysis of the medical records of patients with unilateral profound hearing loss (single-sided deafness or asymmetric hearing loss) for at least ten years. In this patient cohort, childhood-onset unilateral profound hearing loss was significantly associated with the lack of lateralization of the Weber tuning fork test (Fisher’s exact test, p < 0.05) and the absence of tinnitus in the affected ear (Fisher’s exact test, p < 0.001). The findings may imply a central adaptation process due to chronic unilateral auditory deprivation starting before the critical period of auditory maturation. This notion may partially explain the poor outcome of adult cochlear implantation in longstanding single-sided deafness. The findings may suggest a role for the Weber test as a simple, quick, and economical tool for screening poor cochlear implant candidates, thus potentially supporting the decision-making and counseling of patients with longstanding single-sided deafness.

Longitudinal auditory data of children with prelingual single-sided deafness managed with early cochlear implantation

Individuals with single-sided deafness (SSD) have no access to binaural hearing, which limits their ability to localize sounds and understand speech in noisy environments. In addition, children with prelingual SSD are at risk for neurocognitive and academic difficulties. Early cochlear implantation may lead to improved hearing outcomes by restoring bilateral hearing. However, its longitudinal impact on the development of children with SSD remains unclear. In the current study, a group of young children with prelingual SSD received a cochlear implant at an early age. From the age of four, the children’s spatial hearing skills could be assessed using a spatial speech perception in noise test and a sound localization test. The results are compared to those of two control groups: children with SSD without a cochlear implant and children with bilateral normal hearing. Overall, the implanted group exhibited improved speech perception in noise abilities and better sound localization skills, compared to their non-implanted peers. On average, the children wore their device approximately nine hours a day. Given the large contribution of maturation to the development of spatial hearing skills, further follow-up is important to understand the long-term benefit of a cochlear implant for children with prelingual SSD.

The Quality of Life in the Elderly with Acquired Single-Sided Deafness

This study was aimed at assessing the negative impact of an acquired single-sided deafness on quality of life of the elderly. Prospective analysis of outpatient records was carried out to identify elderly patients with single-sided deafness using pure tone audiometry. The main inclusion criteria were age over 60, a 90 dB or higher threshold of an affected ear, a 30 dB or less threshold of an intact ear, and an acquired single-sided hearing loss with sudden onset and a deafness duration of less than 5 years. Taking the inclusion criteria into account, two groups were formed: the main group with single-sided deaf patients (n = 25) and the control group of patients with normal hearing (n = 25). All participants were surveyed with the PSQ, HHIE, and THI questionnaires. Some changes in psychological status in the group of patients with single-sided deafness in comparison with the group of normal hearing participants were revealed. The scores of the questionnaires showed increased stress and anxiety levels and deterioration in their quality of life. Patients with single-sided deafness complained about severe tinnitus in an affected ear, worse intelligibility of speech in a noisy environment and a constant need to adapt to the different acoustic situations that in turn affected psychoemotional homeostasis badly, intensifying the severity of stress, and their quality of life.

Audiologic and patient perceived benefit in cochlear implantation for single-sided deafness

Background

CI in SSD strives to restore binaural hearing. With normal acoustic hearing on one ear, the benefits of rehabilitating the deaf ear with an implant are not well established.

Objectives

We investigate audiologic and quality-of-life measures, and long-term usage patterns of cochlear implantation (CI) in patients with single-sided deafness (SSD)

Methods

Eight patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss of less than 5-year duration were recruited. Pure tone average (PTA), speech discrimination score (SDS), hearing-in-noise test (HINT), tinnitus handicap inventory (THI), quality-of-life speech spatial qualities (SSQ) scale tests were performed before, and one-year after CI. Long-term usage of CI four-years post-operatively was determined.

Results

The median PTA of the deaf ear was 96 dBHL (IQR = 90–120) before, and 30 dBHL (IQR = 27–33) after CI ( p = 0.0156). SDS improved from median of 0% (IQR = 0–3) to 33% (IQR = 24–58) ( p = 0.0360). Median signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), particularly of the S0Nbetter setting of HINT showed improvement from 6.4 dB (IQR = 5.7–7) to 0.9 dB (IQR = −2.25–6.2) ( p = 0.1094). Despite median THI improving from 24 (IQR = 6–47) to 4 (IQR = 2–7) ( p = 0.1563), two patients experienced worsening of tinnitus. SSQ scores in all subscales showed modest improvement not approaching significance. 5 of 8 (62%) patients stopped using their implant four years after surgery.

Conclusion

Despite improved audiologic and tinnitus outcome measures, our patients’ SDS remained in non-serviceable range, while quality-of-life measures showed only modest improvement. Majority of our patients stopped using their implant four years post-surgery. Our study suggests that objective measurable benefits of CI in SSD may not translate to actual patient perceived benefits.

Challenges of Cochlear Implantation in Intralabyrinthine Schwannoma Patients: Surgical Procedures and Auditory Outcome

Intralabyrinthine schwannoma (ILS) is a rare benign tumor of the inner ear potentially causing unilateral sensorineural hearing loss and vertigo. This study evaluated the outcome of one surgical session comprising microsurgical ILS resection and cochlear implantation in terms of surgical feasibility, complications, and auditory outcome. Ten clinically and histologically confirmed ILS patients included in this study (three women and seven men; mean age 56.4 ± 8.6) underwent surgery between July 2015 and February 2020. Eight patients had intracochlear tumor location; the remaining two had vestibulocochlear and intravestibular ILS. One of the three following methods was used for tumor removal: an extended cochleostomy, subtotal cochleoectomy, or a translabyrinthine approach. Although negligible improvement was observed in two of the patients, two patients were lost to follow-up, and one opted out from using CI, the speech perception of the five remaining ILS patients improved as per the Freiburg Monosyllable Test (FMT) from 0% before surgery to 45– 50% after the implantation. Our study supports the presented surgical approach’s feasibility and safety, enabling tumor removal and hearing restoration shortly after surgery.

Systematic review of outcome domains and instruments used in designs of clinical trials for interventions that seek to restore bilateral and binaural hearing in adults with unilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss ('single-sided deafness')

BACKGROUND

This systematic review aimed to identify, compare and contrast outcome domains and outcome instruments reported in studies investigating interventions that seek to restore bilateral (two-sided) and/or binaural (both ears) hearing in adults with single-sided deafness (SSD). Findings can inform the development of evidence-based guidance to facilitate design decisions for confirmatory trials.

METHODS

Records were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, CENTRAL, WHO ICTRP and the NIHR UK clinical trials gateway. The search included records published from 1946 to March 2020. Included studies were those as follows: (a) recruiting adults aged 18 years or older diagnosed with SSD of average threshold severity worse than 70 dB HL in the worse-hearing ear and normal (or near-normal) hearing in the better-hearing ear, (b) evaluating interventions to restore bilateral and/or binaural hearing and (c) enrolling those adults in a controlled trial, before-and-after study or cross-over study. Studies that fell just short of the participant eligibility criteria were included in a separate sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Ninety-six studies were included (72 full inclusion, 24 sensitivity analysis). For fully included studies, 37 exclusively evaluated interventions to re-establish bilateral hearing and 29 exclusively evaluated interventions to restore binaural hearing. Overall, 520 outcome domains were identified (350 primary and 170 secondary). Speech-related outcome domains were the most common (74% of studies), followed by spatial-related domains (60% of studies). A total of 344 unique outcome instruments were reported. Speech-related outcome domains were measured by 73 different instruments and spatial-related domains by 43 different instruments. There was considerable variability in duration of follow-up, ranging from acute (baseline) testing to 10 years after the intervention. The sensitivity analysis identified no additional outcome domains.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified large variability in the reporting of outcome domains and instruments in studies evaluating the therapeutic benefits and harms of SSD interventions. Reports frequently omitted information on what domains the study intended to assess, and on what instruments were used to measure which domains.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The systematic review protocol is registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews): Registration Number CRD42018084274 . Registered on 13 March 2018, last revised on 7th of May 2019.

Bilateral Hearing Loss Due to Metastatic Gastric Signet Cell Adenocarcinoma Involving the Internal Auditory Canal and Cerebellopontine Angle

Intracranial metastases of stomach cancers are very rare and are associated with a poor prognosis. Of those, metastases of gastric cancers in the internal auditory canal and cerebellopontine angle represent an extremely rare subgroup. Such metastatic lesions may be indistinguishable from vestibular schwannomas in imaging studies and clinical presentation. In this report, we describe a case of gastric signet cell adenocarcinoma metastasizing to the internal auditory canal and cerebellopontine angle bilaterally and causing bilateral hearing loss, including a unilateral sudden deafness. Due to the co-detection of multiple other intracranial masses in the magnetic resonance imaging scan, the suspected diagnosis of leptomeningeal metastatic disease was clear, and the patient was referred to palliative whole brain radiotherapy. The case further highlights the importance of prompt diagnosis and treatment of metastatic cerebellopontine angle lesions to prevent permanent neurological sequelae. Metastatic tumors should therefore be considered in the differential diagnosis of cerebellopontine angle lesions, especially in patients with a known history of malignant disease.

Is the cochlear implant a successful long-term solution for single-sided deaf and asymmetric hearing-impaired patients?

PURPOSE

We investigated the long-term results of cochlear implant (CI) recipients with asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) or single-sided deafness (SSD). We focused on wearing behavior, audiometric hearing rehabilitation, and subjective benefits of the CI. CI is expected to improve audiological results, subjective hearing perception, and tinnitus burden.

METHODS

Speech recognition in background noise and sound localization were assessed preoperatively and after at least six years of CI experience. Validated questionnaires determined the subjective benefit of CI use and the subjective evaluation of tinnitus.

RESULTS

Over 80% of the included AHL and SSD CI recipients used their CI between 6 and 10 h daily; four subjects with SSD were non-users. Speech recognition in background noise and sound localization improved significantly compared with the unaided preoperative situation. Additionally, CI improved subjective speech intelligibility and spatial hearing impression while reducing tinnitus burden.

CONCLUSION

Subjects with AHL and SSD benefit from CI, subjectively and audiologically. Cochlear implant is a successful long-term treatment for AHL and SSD.

Tinnitus and stress in adults: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Tinnitus and stress are recurrently reported together. The strength and direction of this relationship is not clear. The aim of this review is to catalogue the evidence of this relationship, how it has been described in adults and which instruments were used.

DESIGN

Five-stage framework was followed. An online search of databases and published journals were conducted. The main inclusion criteria were original studies published in English and conducted in an adult human population, in which both tinnitus and stress were measured using different instruments.

STUDY SAMPLES

5699 records were identified in the searching stage and 50 studies were eligible for data extraction.

RESULTS

Measurements of perceived stress were most frequently used. Tinnitus patients tend to report louder and more bothersome tinnitus when they are stressed, but not all tinnitus patients associated stress with the onset or the severity of their tinnitus. Any positive correlation reported between stress and tinnitus levels varied in strength according to the used instrument. Post-intervention changes in stress and tinnitus levels showed inconsistency.

CONCLUSION

There is considerable room for further research to study the relationship between stress and tinnitus. We highlight principal issues that should be considered in future studies.

The effect of hearing loss configuration on cochlear implantation uptake rates: an Australian experience

Objective: Recent changes to cochlear implant (CI) candidacy criteria have led to the inclusion of candidates with greater levels of hearing in the contralateral and/or implanted ear. This study assessed the impact of various hearing loss configurations on CI uptake rates (those assessed as eligible for CI, who proceed to CI).Design: Retrospective cohort study.Study sample: Post-lingually deaf adult CI candidates (n = 619) seen at a Western Australian cochlear implant clinic.Results: An overall CI uptake rate of 44% was observed. Hearing loss configuration significantly impacted uptake rates. Uptake rates of 62% for symmetrical hearing loss, 48% for asymmetrical hearing loss (four-frequency average hearing loss (4FAHL) asymmetry ≤60 dB), 25% for highly asymmetrical hearing loss (4FAHL asymmetry >60 dB), 38% for hearing losses eligible for electric-acoustic stimulation, and 22% for individuals with single-sided hearing loss were observed. Hearing loss configuration and age were both significant factors in relation to CI uptake although the impact of age was limited.Conclusion: CI clinics who apply or are considering applying expanded CI candidacy criteria within their practice should be aware that candidates with greater levels of residual hearing in at least the contralateral ear are less likely to proceed to CI.

What can we learn from adult cochlear implant recipients with single-sided deafness who became elective non-users?

Objective: This retrospective study investigates the incidence of elective cochlear implant (CI) non-use amongst a cohort of adult CI recipients with single-sided deafness (SSD), identifies the causes that led to non-use, and assesses how non-use could be prevented. Methods: All adults with SSD who received a CI between 2008 and 2018 and who became elective CI non-users were included. Elective non-users were defined as CI recipients who decided to stop using their CI or, if explantation was necessary, refused reimplantation. Results: 5/114 (4.4%) adults with SSD who received a CI became elective non-users. The 5 non-users were a mean 44.2 years old (range 33-70 years) at implantation, had a mean duration of deafness of 7.1 years (range 0.5-20 years) at implantation, and used their CI for a mean 11.5 months (range 1.5-60 months) before (fully) discontinuing use. The primary cause of elective non-use was postoperative discouragement due to unrealistic expectations (4 participants) regarding sound perception with the CI or about the greater than expected level of commitment necessary for rehabilitation. Conclusions: Elective non-use among adult CI recipients with single-sided deafness was very rare and could be further prevented by comprehensive counselling to ensure that candidates have realistic expectations about the rehabilitation requirements and the outcomes with the CI.

Outcomes of unilateral idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss: Two decades of experience

OBJECTIVES

(a) Determine the demographic and medical risk factors for patients who presented with unilateral idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL); (b) identify treatments that patients underwent; (c) evaluate the adequacy of follow-up and compliance with long-term hearing rehabilitation.

METHODS

Retrospective review of patients who presented with unilateral ISSNHL between January 1998 and December 2017 at a tertiary care academic medical center.

RESULTS

Two hundred-four patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 129 (63.2%) did not undergo treatment at an outside hospital prior to our evaluation. In this subgroup, the average pretreatment pure tone average (PTA) was 61.9 ± 2.5 dB (dB). The most common treatment was oral steroids and was recommended in 76 patients (59.9%). Patients also underwent intratympanic (IT) steroid injections (7.2%) or oral steroids followed by salvage IT injections (19.4%). Mean follow-up duration was 17.9 (±29.2) months, and posttreatment PTA (45.6 ± 2.6 dB) was significantly better than baseline (P < .001). In this cohort, hearing amplification was infrequently recommended. Less than 20% of patients reported active hearing amplification use at their most recent visit. At follow-up, 90 patients (69.8%) reported subjective improvement in hearing after treatment. Only 55 patients (42.6%) showed improvement in PTA compared to their pretreatment audiograms.

CONCLUSION

Many patients with ISSNHL experienced audiometric improvement after treatments, but most had persistent hearing loss. The duration of follow-up was short. Most patients did not use long-term hearing amplification. Future studies are needed to identify factors that contribute to reduced follow-up and low compliance with hearing amplification use in ISSNHL.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2c.