Faculty Bibliography

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.

OBJECTIVE:To describe our experience with children undergoing unilateral cochlear implantation (CI) for treatment of single-sided deafness (SSD). STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective case series. METHODS:A retrospective case review from a tertiary referral center involving 14 pediatric patients (<18 years) with SSD who underwent unilateral CI. Speech perception testing in quiet and noise in the CI-only and bimodal conditions with at least 1 year of device use and device usage from data logs represent the main outcome measures. RESULTS:The mean age at CI was 5.0 years (median 4.4, range 1.0-11.8 years). The mean duration of deafness was 3.0 years (median 2.4, range 0.6-7.0 years). Mean follow-up was 3.4 years. Speech perception testing with a minimum of 1 year post-CI was available in eight patients. The mean word recognition scores (WRS) in the CI-only condition was 56%; a significant improvement from baseline. Testing in background noise with spatially separated speech and noise revealed that patients scored as well or better with the CI-on versus CI-off in all conditions and in no cases was interference from the CI noted. Data logs were reviewed for device usage which revealed an average use of 6.5 hr/d. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Cochlear implantation is a viable treatment option for pediatric SSD in this self-selected cohort. Open-set speech and improvement in background noise can be achieved. Careful patient selection and thorough counseling on expectations is paramount to achieving successful outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:IV Laryngoscope, 2020.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Some cochlear implant (CI) patients lose their residual hearing during surgery. Two factors that might play a role in residual hearing loss are the change in intracochlear hydraulic pressure and force on the cochlear wall during electrode insertion. The aim of this study is to investigate whether a difference in peak hydraulic pressure and peak force on the cochlear wall exists during a CI electrode insertion with different insertion techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Twenty fresh frozen temporal bones were used. Hydraulic pressure and force on the cochlear wall were recorded during straight electrode insertions with 1) slow versus fast insertion speed, 2) manual versus automatic insertion method and 3) round window approach (RWA) versus extended RWA (ERWA). RESULTS:When inserting with a slow compared to a fast insertion speed, the peak hydraulic pressure is 239% (95% CI: 130-399%) higher with a RWA and 58% (95% CI: 6-137%) higher with an ERWA. However, the peak force on the cochlear wall is a factor 29% less (95% CI: 13-43%) with a slow insertion speed. No effect was found of opening and insertion method. CONCLUSIONS:As contradictory findings were found for hydraulic pressure and force on the cochlear wall on insertion speed, it remains unclear which insertion speed (slow versus fast) is less traumatic to inner ear structure.

Two notes sounded sequentially elicit melodic intervals and contours that form the basis of melody. Many previous studies have characterized pitch perception in cochlear implant (CI) users to be poor which may be due to the limited spectro-temporal resolution and/or spectral warping with electric hearing compared to acoustic hearing (AH). Poor pitch perception in CIs has been shown to distort melodic interval perception. To characterize this interval distortion, we recruited CI users with either normal (single sided deafness, SSD) or limited (bimodal) AH in the non-implanted ear. The contralateral AH allowed for a stable reference with which to compare melodic interval perception in the CI ear, within the same listener. Melodic interval perception was compared across acoustic and electric hearing in 9 CI listeners (4 bimodal and 5 SSD). Participants were asked to rank the size of a probe interval presented to the CI ear to a reference interval presented to the contralateral AH ear using a method of constant stimuli. Ipsilateral interval ranking was also measured within the AH ear to ensure that listeners understood the task and that interval ranking was stable and accurate within AH. Stimuli were delivered to the AH ear via headphones and to the CI ear via direct audio input (DAI) to participants' clinical processors. During testing, a reference and probe interval was presented and participants indicated which was larger. Ten comparisons for each reference-probe combination were presented. Psychometric functions were fit to the data to determine the probe interval size that matched the reference interval. Across all AH reference intervals, the mean matched CI interval was 1.74 times larger than the AH reference. However, there was great inter-subject variability. For some participants, CI interval distortion varied across different reference AH intervals; for others, CI interval distortion was constant. Within the AH ear, ipsilateral interval ranking was accurate, ensuring that participants understood the task. No significant differences in the patterns of results were observed between bimodal and SSD CI users. The present data show that much larger intervals were needed with the CI to match contralateral AH reference intervals. As such, input melodic patterns are likely to be perceived as frequency compressed and/or warped with electric hearing, with less variation among notes in the pattern. The high inter-subject variability in CI interval distortion suggests that CI signal processing should be optimized for individual CI users.