Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate outcomes of auditory implants in children with CHARGE syndrome and describe the evolution in management of hearing loss in this complex population. METHODS:A retrospective case review was performed at a tertiary referral center. Children with CHARGE syndrome who received either a cochlear implant (CI) or auditory brainstem implant (ABI) were included. Clinical records, demographic information, CHARGE features, neuroimaging, audiology, hearing rehabilitation interventions, operative notes, and outcomes were reviewed. RESULTS:Thirteen children with CHARGE syndrome underwent a total of 19 cochlear implants between 2008 and 2020. Among the congenitally deafened children (n = 9), six underwent bilateral implantation (five simultaneous and one sequential). Bilateral implantation was performed even in the presence of diminutive-appearing cochlear nerves. The average age of implantation was 1.1 years, and the mean device use time was 9.4 hours per day. Patients showed improvements in subjective family assessment related to hearing. In this group, two patients use oral communication, five use total communication, and two use sign language exclusively. Among the children with progressive hearing loss, the mean age of hearing deterioration was 4.4 years of age, and the device use time on average was 9.8 hours per day. The highest performer in the cohort was a child who lost hearing in their only hearing ear at age 4 and had normal cochleovestibular anatomy on that side. One child received an auditory brainstem implant at age two after deriving no benefit from a CI and can detect environmental sounds but is currently a nonuser. Over time, we noted that implantation occurred earlier in life and that practice has shifted toward bilateral implantation. CONCLUSIONS:Compared to a previous institutional cohort, children evaluated in this study were often implanted at a younger age and bilaterally with significantly improved outcomes. A CI evaluation should be considered in children with CHARGE syndrome to maximize sensory input and auditory ability.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Severe hearing loss is particularly prevalent among Veterans. In response, the Veterans Affairs (VA) provides hearing aids and cochlear implants as part of their comprehensive hearing loss treatment. The VA's national health care system and integrated electronic health records offer a unique opportunity to examine patterns and outcomes in the management of severe hearing loss. METHOD/METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed an urban VA center's database for all Veterans who underwent cochlear implantation between 2010 and 2019. We collected preoperative demographic and audiological data including cochlear implant outcomes. RESULTS:During the study period, 61 Veterans received a cochlear implant, totaling 70 ears implanted. Median age at implantation was 70.2 years. Over 90% of Veterans reported preoperative hearing aid use, and median preoperative four-frequency pure-tone average and aided word recognition score in the ear to be implanted were 100 dB HL and 7%, respectively. The median onset of severe hearing loss bilaterally was over 4 years prior to cochlear implant evaluation based on available audiometric data. Postoperative word recognition score was negatively correlated with self-reported duration of hearing loss. CONCLUSIONS:This study provides unique insights into how Veterans with severe hearing loss are managed at one VA center. Compared to data published on cochlear implant recipients in the civilian population, Veterans in this cohort were older and had higher rates of preoperative hearing aid use. Available VA data suggest most Veterans were appropriate candidates for cochlear implant referral years prior to undergoing an evaluation. Reasons for treatment delays in this population remain to be studied.

OBJECTIVE:To investigate a new surgical and signal processing technique that provides apical stimulation of the cochlea using a cochlear implant without extending the length of the electrode array. PATIENTS/METHODS:Three adult patients who underwent cochlear implantation using this new technique. INTERVENTIONS/METHODS:The patients received a cochlear implant. The surgery differed from the standard approach in that a ground electrode was placed in the cochlear helicotrema via an apical cochleostomy rather than in its typical location underneath the temporalis muscle. Clinical fitting was modified such that low frequencies were represented using the apically placed electrode as a ground. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Pitch scaling and speech recognition. RESULTS:All surgeries were successful with no complications. Pitch scaling demonstrated that use of the apically placed electrode as a ground lowered the perceived pitch of electric stimulation relative to monopolar stimulation. Speech understanding was improved compared with preoperative scores. CONCLUSIONS:The new surgical approach and clinical fitting are feasible. A lower pitch is perceived when using the apically placed electrode as a ground relative to stimulation using an extracochlear ground (i.e., monopolar mode), suggesting that stimulation can be provided more apically without the use of a longer electrode array. Further work is required to determine potential improvements in outcomes and optimal signal processing for the new approach.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Age of cochlear implantation (CI) is an important predictor of language development in those with congenital sensorineural hearing loss. Despite universal newborn hearing screening initiatives and the known benefits of early CI, a subset of congenitally deaf children continue to be evaluated for cochlear implants later in childhood. This study aims to identify the barriers to early cochlear implantation in these children. METHODS:A retrospective review was conducted for all pediatric cochlear implants aged 3 years or older performed at a single academic institution between 2013 and 2017. Children implanted before the age three, those with a prior unilateral cochlear implant, and those with progressive or sudden hearing loss were excluded. Variables included newborn hearing screen results, age at hearing loss diagnosis, time of initiation and documented benefit of hearing aids, age of implantation, pre/post-implantation evaluation scores, and reason for delayed referral for cochlear implantation. RESULTS:Thirty-one patients were identified meeting these inclusion criteria. Twenty-one children were subject to UNBS in the U.S. Fourteen of those children failed their newborn hearing screening. Average age at implantation was 6.2 years. Four reasons were identified for increased age at cochlear implantation. Two categories represent delays related to (1) Amplification continually prescribed even though the range of hearing loss and speech development assessment suggests CI may have been more appropriate well before referral (N = 13) (2) Patients were not subject to newborn hearing screening and/or timely diagnosis of their hearing loss (N = 8). In other cases, patients were appropriately fit with hearing aids until evidence that they derived limited benefit and then referred for CI (N = 8). Lastly, in a few cases, records were indeterminate with regards to the timing and appropriate diagnosis of their hearing loss (N = 2). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Understanding the reasons for delayed cochlear implantation in congenitally deaf children might allow the development of targeted interventions to improve outcomes. Specifically, those children who were not referred before age 3 despite use of amplification with limited benefit offer one potential target population for earlier CI.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate outcomes following salvage microsurgery (MS) and salvage stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) after failure of primary treatment for vestibular schwannomas (VS). STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective chart review. SETTING/METHODS:Tertiary referral center. METHODS:Patients with more than 1 intervention for their VS were divided into 4 groups: MS followed by SRS (n = 61), MS followed by MS (n = 9), SRS followed by MS (n = 7), and SRS followed by SRS (n = 7), and outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS:A total of 77 patients were included (84 procedures). In group 1 (MS then SRS), 3% developed a decline in facial function, 3% developed trigeminal sensory loss, and 13% patients had gradual improvement of facial nerve function following SRS. Group 2 (MS then MS) had the highest rates of facial nerve deterioration, although all but 1 patient achieved a House-Brackmann score of II or III. Gross-total resection (GTR) was achieved in 56% of patients. When a different approach was used for salvage resection, GTR occurred more commonly, and facial nerve outcomes were similar. In group 3 (SRS then MS), GTR occurred in 43% of cases, and 2 of 7 patients developed worsened facial function. In group 4 (SRS then SRS), no patient developed facial weakness after reirradiation, and 1 developed a trigeminal nerve deficit. CONCLUSIONS:For MS recurrences/residuals, SRS is the mainstay of treatment and does not preclude facial function recovery. If salvage microsurgery is required, an alternate approach should be considered. For SRS failures, when MS is required, less-than GTR may be preferable, and reirradiation is a potential safe alternative.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVE:The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery has published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to guide management of common otolaryngologic (ENT) conditions. While these CPGs have been disseminated within specialty journals, many patients' first presentation of certain ENT complaints is to primary and acute care settings, including the emergency department (ED). It is less clear whether practice in these settings is concordant with specialty CPGs. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study. METHODS:A retrospective review of medical records was performed at an academic tertiary care center with ED diagnoses of 1) Bell's palsy/facial weakness (BP) or 2) acute otitis externa (AOE) from May 2014-June 2018. Individual chart abstraction was performed for all encounters with these diagnoses for the purpose of assessing providers' adherence to CPGs. RESULTS:During the study period, 224 patients were diagnosed with BP and 465 patients were diagnosed with AOE. Of the patients diagnosed with BP, 94% (n = 211/224) were prescribed oral steroids, concordant with guidelines, while 36% of these patients received head computed tomography (CT) scans and 43% received laboratory tests, counter to the guidelines. For those with a diagnosis of AOE, 28.6% received topical antibiotics only as primary treatment (n = 133/465) in accordance with guidelines while systemic antibiotics were prescribed in 42.2% (n = 196/465) discordant with the guidelines and 29.2% received both topical and systemic antibiotics (n = 136/465). CONCLUSIONS:CPGs developed by subspecialty societies provide evidence-based recommendations for the care of patients with particular conditions, but may not be disseminated broadly outside of the specialty. Further research is required to understand the reasons behind divergent management of such conditions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:3 Laryngoscope, 2020.

OBJECTIVE:To describe outcomes with cochlear implantation (CI) for rehabilitation of hearing loss in patients with sporadic vestibular schwannomas (VS) and other retrocochlear pathologies. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective review. SETTING/METHODS:Tertiary-care center. PATIENTS/METHODS:Twenty three cases in 19 patients (53% men, mean age 55.8 yr) with non-neurofibromatosis type 2 related retrocochlear pathology. INTERVENTIONS/METHODS:Unilateral or bilateral CI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Word recognition score, device usage. RESULTS:Etiology of deafness included sporadic VS (n = 9, 39%), radiation after head and neck or central nervous system (CNS) malignancy (n = 8, 35%), superficial siderosis (n = 3, 13%), neurosarcoidosis (n = 2, 9%), and pontine stroke (n = 1, 4%). Mean follow-up duration was 2.3 years (standard deviation [SD] 3.0; range, 0.2-9.4). Auditory perception was achieved in 20 out of 22 patients (91%) who have been activated. Mean WRS in patients with sporadic VS was 18% (SD 20; range, 0-44). Mean WRS in patients with non-VS retrocochlear pathology was 55% (SD 30; range, 0-94). Data logs showed 7.0 h/d of average use (SD 4.3; range, 0-13). CONCLUSIONS:Appropriately selected patients with retrocochlear pathology may benefit from CI so long as the patient has a cochlear fluid signal and an intact cochlear nerve. Patients with sporadic VS patients and normal contralateral hearing exhibited guarded outcomes with CI, whereas most patients with non-VS retrocochlear pathologies demonstrated open-set speech understanding scores comparable to or slightly worse than conventional CI candidates. Since variable performance benefit is observed with CI in patients with retrocochlear pathology, counseling is imperative to align patient expectations with realistic outcomes.

OBJECTIVE:To describe our institutional experience with cochlear implantation (CI) for rehabilitation of hearing loss in Neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2) patients. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective review between 1989 and 2019. SETTING/METHODS:Tertiary-care center. PATIENTS/METHODS:Twenty-four patients (67% female, mean age 45.6years) with NF2. Management of their ipsilateral vestibular schwannoma included microsurgery (n=12), stereotactic radiation (n=5), and observation (n=7). INTERVENTIONS/METHODS:Cochlear implantation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Ability to obtain open-set speech, daily device usage and long-term device benefit. RESULTS:All patients achieved some degree of sound awareness with CI. Nineteen patients (79%) achieved open-set speech understanding with a mean word-recognition score of 43% (range 0-88%). Patients with tumors 1.5 cm or less demonstrated the better speech understanding, without significant differences among treatment modalities. For tumors greater than 1.5 cm, patients who underwent microsurgery had a lower rate of open-set speech understanding compared to those treated with radiation or observation. Regular daily device use in 83% of patients was found. Long-term use (>10years) was observed in several patients, though some ultimately required reimplantation with an auditory brainstem implant due to progressive tumor growth. Mean follow-up duration was 4.1 years (range 0.4-15). CONCLUSIONS:Cochlear implantation can be an effective treatment for hearing loss in NF2 patients provided the cochlear nerve is intact, regardless of prior management for the ipsilateral tumor. The degree of benefit varies and is influenced by tumor size. Management strategies that preserve the cochlear nerve maximize the interval during which a CI could be of benefit to NF2 patients.

OBJECTIVE:To describe our experience with adults undergoing cochlear implantation (CI) for treatment of single-sided deafness (SSD). STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective case review. SETTING/METHODS:Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS/METHODS:Fifty-three adults with SSD. INTERVENTIONS/METHODS:Unilateral CI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Speech perception testing in quiet and noise, tinnitus suppression, and device usage from datalogs. RESULTS:The mean age at CI was 53.2 years (SD 11.9). The mean duration of deafness was 4.0 years (SD 7.8). The most common etiology was idiopathic sudden SNHL (50%). Word recognition improved from 8.7% (SD 15) preoperatively to 61.8% (SD 20) at a mean follow-up of 3.3 years (SD 1.8) (p < 0.0001). Adaptive speech recognition testing in the "binaural with CI" condition (speech directed toward the front and noise toward the normal hearing ear) revealed a significant improvement by 2.6-dB SNR compared to the preoperative unaided condition (p = 0.0002) and by 3.6-dB SNR compared to when a device to route sound to the contralateral side was used (p < 0.0001). Tinnitus suppression was reported to be complete in 23 patients (43%) and improved in 20 patients (38%) while the device was on. The addition of the CI did not lead to a decrement in hearing performance in any spatial configuration. Device usage averaged 8.7 (SD 3.7) hours/day. CONCLUSIONS:Cochlear implantation in adult SSD patients can suppress tinnitus and achieve speech perception outcomes comparable with CI in conventional candidates. Modest improvements in spatial hearing were also observed and primarily attributable to the head shadow effect. Careful patient selection and counseling regarding potential benefits are important to optimize outcomes.

As cochlear implant (CI) candidacy has expanded, commercial payers in the United States have varied in their adoption of new indications, potentially confusing providers' knowledge about appropriate patients for referral. We reviewed how third-party payers classify the medical necessity of cochlear implants for a variety of indications across the lifespan. We compared policies of the six largest commercial payers in our region, focusing on clinical scenarios for which many centers experience difficulty obtaining pre-authorization. These include: (1) CI in children under 12 months, (2) audiometric and speech perception criteria in children, (3) sequential bilateral CI, (4) electro-acoustic stimulation, (5) impending cochlear ossification, and (6) single-sided deafness (SSD). Of the more notable findings for the clinical scenarios half of commercial payers have a pediatric age requirement of greater than 12 months. Generally, audiologic and speech perception criteria are more stringent for children than adults across all policies. SSD is considered investigational by most policies. Third-party payers employ variable criteria regarding the medical necessity of CI, many of which are not contemporaneous with clinical knowledge and best practices. This may impact referral patterns among audiologists. More methodologically rigorous clinical trials may help shift such restrictive policies to benefit a greater number of patients.