Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To describe the surgical technique and outcome in a series of patients who underwent revision cochlear implantation using a double array or split electrode device. All patients developed ossified cochleae due to meningitis and were functioning poorly with the previous implant. METHODS:Four patients between the ages of 4-15 years underwent revision with five double-array cochlear implant devices. One patient underwent bilateral revision surgery. All patients had previous meningitis with CT and MRI imaging studies that demonstrated completely ossified cochleae. The time interval range between the disease and the initial cochlear implantation and was 4 months to 3 years. The patient's data were retrospectively analyzed with emphasis on the surgical technique, the number of electrodes inserted, and the number of active electrodes at follow-up. In addition, pre and post-revision surgery function was compared. RESULTS:The revision surgery was carried out 2-11 years after the initial surgery. Two tunnels, basal and apical, were drilled in the ossified cochlea. In each of the tunnels, 5 to 11 electrodes were inserted. While the number of active electrodes before revision was 0-5, after revision with the double array, it was increased to 8-12, resulting in improved auditory and speech function. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Revision cochlear implantation with a double array implant using the two tunnel technique can increase the number of active electrodes. This leads to a better outcome in post-meningitis children with completely ossified cochleae and a poor functioning previous device.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Cochlear implants are a treatment option for individuals with severe, profound, or moderate sloping to profound bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) who receive little or no benefit from hearing aids; however, cochlear implantation in adults is still not routine. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To develop consensus statements regarding the use of unilateral cochlear implants in adults with severe, profound, or moderate sloping to profound bilateral SNHL. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This study was a modified Delphi consensus process that was informed by a systematic review of the literature and clinical expertise. Searches were conducted in the following databases: (1) MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Ovid MEDLINE, (2) Embase, and (3) the Cochrane Library. Consensus statements on cochlear implantation were developed using the evidence identified. This consensus process was relevant for the use of unilateral cochlear implantation in adults with severe, profound, or moderate sloping to profound bilateral SNHL. The literature searches were conducted on July 18, 2018, and the 3-step Delphi consensus method took place over the subsequent 9-month period up to March 30, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:A Delphi consensus panel of 30 international specialists voted on consensus statements about cochlear implantation, informed by an SR of the literature and clinical expertise. This vote resulted in 20 evidence-based consensus statements that are in line with clinical experience. A modified 3-step Delphi consensus method was used to vote on and refine the consensus statements. This method consisted of 2 rounds of email questionnaires and a face-to-face meeting of panel members at the final round. All consensus statements were reviewed, discussed, and finalized at the face-to-face meeting. Results/UNASSIGNED:In total, 6492 articles were identified in the searches of the electronic databases. After removal of duplicate articles, 74 articles fulfilled all of the inclusion criteria and were used to create the 20 evidence-based consensus statements. These 20 consensus statements on the use of unilateral cochlear implantation in adults with SNHL were relevant to the following 7 key areas of interest: level of awareness of cochlear implantation (1 consensus statement); best practice clinical pathway from diagnosis to surgery (3 consensus statements); best practice guidelines for surgery (2 consensus statements); clinical effectiveness of cochlear implantation (4 consensus statements); factors associated with postimplantation outcomes (4 consensus statements); association between hearing loss and depression, cognition, and dementia (5 consensus statements); and cost implications of cochlear implantation (1 consensus statement). Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:These consensus statements represent the first step toward the development of international guidelines on best practices for cochlear implantation in adults with SNHL. Further research to develop consensus statements for unilateral cochlear implantation in children, bilateral cochlear implantation, combined electric-acoustic stimulation, unilateral cochlear implantation for single-sided deafness, and asymmetrical hearing loss in children and adults may be beneficial for optimizing hearing and quality of life for these patients.

: This combined American Neurotology Society, American Otological Society, and American Academy of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery Foundation document aims to provide guidance during the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) on 1) "priority" of care for otologic and neurotologic patients in the office and operating room, and 2) optimal utilization of personal protective equipment. Given the paucity of evidence to inform otologic and neurotologic best practices during COVID-19, the recommendations herein are based on relevant peer-reviewed articles, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 guidelines, United States and international hospital policies, and expert opinion. The suggestions presented here are not meant to be definitive, and best practices will undoubtedly change with increasing knowledge and high-quality data related to COVID-19. Interpretation of this guidance document is dependent on local factors including prevalence of COVID-19 in the surgeons' local community. This is not intended to set a standard of care, and should not supersede the clinician's best judgement when managing specific clinical concerns and/or regional conditions.Access to otologic and neurotologic care during and after the COVID-19 pandemic is dependent upon adequate protection of physicians, audiologists, and ancillary support staff. Otolaryngologists and associated staff are at high risk for COVID-19 disease transmission based on close contact with mucosal surfaces of the upper aerodigestive tract during diagnostic evaluation and therapeutic procedures. While many otologic and neurotologic conditions are not imminently life threatening, they have a major impact on communication, daily functioning, and quality of life. In addition, progression of disease and delay in treatment can result in cranial nerve deficits, intracranial and life-threatening complications, and/or irreversible consequences. In this regard, many otologic and neurotologic conditions should rightfully be considered "urgent," and almost all require timely attention to permit optimal outcomes. It is reasonable to proceed with otologic and neurotologic clinic visits and operative cases based on input from expert opinion of otologic care providers, clinic/hospital administration, infection prevention and control specialists, and local and state public health leaders. Significant regional variations in COVID-19 prevalence exist; therefore, physicians working with local municipalities are best suited to make determinations on the appropriateness and timing of otologic and neurotologic care.

OBJECTIVE:To determine factors associated with infection, management, and resultant outcomes following pediatric cochlear implantation. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study with nested case series. SETTING/METHODS:Tertiary academic medical center. PATIENTS/METHODS:Children who underwent either unilateral or bilateral cochlear implantation between June 2011 and September 2016 and were under the age of 18 at the time of surgery. INTERVENTION(S)/METHODS:Subjects were compared based on age, cochlea malformation, revision surgery, operative time, device manufacturer, and antibiotic use. Infections were compared based on location, time, bacteria, management, and resolution. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)/METHODS:Rate of infection, rate of device explantation. RESULTS:There were 16 infections among 246 surgeries, an infection rate of 6.5%. There was a significant age difference between infected and noninfected patients overall (n = 246, 1.4 versus 4.3 years, p = 0.005), but not within the cohort of patients five or younger (n = 172, 1.4 versus 1.8 years, p = 0.363). The most common infectious complication was skin infection, followed by device infection. No cases of meningitis were seen. The most common organism was S Aureus. The implant was salvaged in 9 of 16 patients (56.3%), with higher rates in patients treated with IV versus oral antibiotics (70 versus 40%). CONCLUSIONS:Postoperative infection is positively associated with younger age overall, but not in patients below the age of 5. With modern devices and surgical practices, risk of meningitis-though a concern-may be lower than cited in the literature. Prompt and aggressive therapy with IV antibiotics and operative intervention can allow for high rates of device salvage.

Introduction: While cochlear implants (CI) prior to 12 months of age have become common, the prevalence and impact of issues that either arise or were not evident prior to implantation is unknown. Methods: Retrospective chart review of children implanted under 12 months of age with minimum 3 years follow up. The children were divided into three groups: those with no identified additional disabilities, those with no known disabilities at time of implantation but diagnosed with additional disabilities following implantation, and those that had known anticipated additional disabilities at time of implantation. Results: 108 children under the age of 12 months were implanted at our Center between 2000 and 2013 with an average age of 9 months at time of implantation and n = 93 met inclusion criteria. In 79.6% (74/93) of children, there were no additional issues detected. In 11.8% (11/93), additional issues were known at the time of implantation while in 8.6% (8/93) of the children were diagnosed with additional issues that were not evident prior to implantation. The auditory and linguistic benefits vary commensurate with the severity of their disabilities. Those with anticipated issues preoperatively did not perform as well. Conclusions: Children implanted below one year of age but diagnosed with additional disabilities following implantation obtained substantial though varying degrees of benefit. In none of these cases would knowledge of the disability have altered the decision to offer early CI. It is important to address these potential issues when counseling families about outcomes.

Auditory brainstem implants (ABIs) stimulate the auditory system at the cochlear nucleus, bypassing the peripheral auditory system including the auditory nerve. They are used in patients who are not cochlear implant candidates. Current criteria for use in the United States are neurofibromatosis type 2 patients 12 years or older undergoing first- or second-side vestibular schwannoma removal. However, there are other nontumor conditions in which patients may benefit from an ABI, such as bilateral cochlear nerve aplasia and severe cochlear malformation not amendable to cochlear implantation. Recent experience with ABI in the pediatric population demonstrates good safety profile and encouraging results.

Objective: To describe cochlear implantation (CI) outcomes for rehabilitation of hearing loss due to retrocochlear pathology and/or its treatment.
Method(s): Retrospective review between 1995 and 2019 from a single tertiary care center of all patients with retrocochlear pathology who underwent CI. Demographics, clinical history, and audiometric data were reviewed. Study endpoints include (1) logged device use, (2) ability to achieve auditory perception, and (3) word recognition score (WRS) in the CI-only condition.
Result(s): Thirty-two patients (63% of females) with retrocochlear pathology were implanted at our center. The average age at implantation was 46.9 years (SD: 19, range: 13-80). Mean duration of deafness was 4.5 years (SD: 5.0, range: 0.4-19.0). Etiology of hearing loss included VS in 24 (75%), CNS malignancy treated with radiation in 4 (13%), intralabyrinthine schwannoma in 2 (6%), head and neck malignancy treated with radiation in 1 (3%), and superficial siderosis in 1 (3%). The mean preoperative PTA was 95.8 dBHL (SD 24.7) and WRS was 7.2% (SD 13.1). Of the 24 VSs, 21 were NF2-associated and 3 were sporadic. The mean tumor size was 1.64 cm (SD: 0.6, range: 0.5-2.6 cm). At the time of CI, 11 patients had prior microsurgery, 6 patients had prior radiation to the ipsilateral tumor, and 7 patients had stable tumors without prior surgery or radiation. Device use was classified as regular (>7 hours/day) in 15 (47%), limited (<7 hours/day) in 12 (38%), and nonuse is 5 (16%). The audiometric outcomes of 26 patients are reported, as the other 6 patients have been implanted too recently for review. Auditory perception was achieved in 24/26 patients. The two patients who failed to achieve auditory perception underwent prior surgery. Open-set speech recognition (WRS > 20%) was achieved in 18 patients. Meaningful sound perception but without significant open-set speech (WRS < 20%) was seen in six patients. Altogether, the mean WRS at most recent follow-up (mean: 3.4 years, SD: 1.8) for the observation, microsurgery, and radiation cohorts was 51% (SD: 15), 36% (SD: 28), and 39% (SD: 26), respectively. Over long-term follow-up, two patients experienced decline in CI performance associated with tumor regrowth and necessitated additional surgery; both underwent explantation of the CI and successful auditory brainstem implantation. The remaining patients have demonstrated durable benefit. A multivariate analysis is presented to evaluate the effects of the following variables: duration of deafness, time interval between treatment and CI, diagnosis of NF2, treatment cohort, pathology, and status of hearing in the contralateral ear.
Conclusion(s): In appropriately selected patients, cochlear implantation is feasible for the rehabilitation of hearing loss due to retrocochlear pathology and/or its treatment. Given the heterogeneity inherent to this population, outcomes are variable. In most cases, auditory percept was achieved and over half of the patients obtained open-set speech perception, irrespective of prior management and treatment

OBJECTIVE:We conducted a quality improvement project to increase the rate of discharges before noon (DBN) in the otolaryngology department at a tertiary care center. METHODS:Based on a Plan-Do-Study-Act framework, monthly discharge data and observed-to-expected (O:E) length of stay were collected and shared with the department members monthly. A target of 43% DBN was predetermined by the center (Plan). The following interventions were implemented (Do): discharge planning starting at the time of admission, focus on early attending-to-resident team communication, placement of discharge order prior to rounding, and weekly reminders to the entire department. RESULTS:Discharges were monitored for 3 years. For the year prior to this study, a minority of patients were discharged before noon (12 months: 75 of 190, 36%). During the first 6 months of monitoring (Study), no significant improvement was identified (34 of 95, 36%). After interventions, performance significantly improved (31 months: 250 of 548, 68%). The performance was consistently above the predetermined target of 43%. During the study time, O:E length of stay remained below the predetermined target (O:E ratio, 0.90; hospital target, 0.93). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Comprehensive discharge planning beginning at the time of admission, weekly reminders, and improved communication (Act) can help to prioritize DBN and increase the percentage of discharges before noon. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE/CONCLUSIONS:By utilizing a quality improvement framework, significant improvements in timely discharge can be achieved and sustained with changes in workflow and departmental culture. These changes can be achieved without increases in resources or prolonging the length of stay.

As the world's geriatric population continues to grow at an unprecedented rate, an increasing number of elderly patients are seeking hearing rehabilitation strategies, including cochlear implantation (CI). However, CI surgery in elderly patients has been met with trepidation given fears of physical and cognitive complications associated with general anesthesia. Cochlear implant surgery under local anesthesia with conscious sedation (LA-CS) in the elderly population is a safe and feasible alternative to general anesthesia. Elderly patients who are too infirm for general anesthesia or who choose not to pursue CI due to fears of the cognitive or medical consequences of general anesthesia should be counseled on the option of doing it under LA-CS by experienced CI surgeons. This article provides an overview of the surgical technique and technical nuances of performing CI surgery under LA-CS.