Westerberg, Brian D.

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.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the use of monosyllabic word recognition versus sentence recognition to determine candidacy and long‐term benefit for cochlear implantation.Study DesignProspective multi‐center single‐subject design.MethodsA total of 21 adults aged 18 years and older with bilateral moderate to profound sensorineural hearing loss and low monosyllabic word scores received unilateral cochlear implantation. The consonant‐nucleus‐consonant (CNC) word test was the central measure of pre‐ and postoperative performance. Additional speech understanding tests included the Hearing in Noise Test sentences in quiet and AzBio sentences in +5 dB signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR). Quality of life (QoL) was measured using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit and Health Utilities Index.ResultsPerformance on sentence recognition reached the ceiling of the test after only 3 months of implant use. In contrast, none of the participants in this study reached a score of 80% on CNC word recognition, even at the 12‐month postoperative test interval. Measures of QoL related to hearing were also significantly improved following implantation.ConclusionResults of this study demonstrate that monosyllabic words are appropriate for determining preoperative candidate and measuring long‐term postoperative speech recognition performance.Level of Evidence2c. Laryngoscope, 127:2368–2374, 2017

OBJECTIVETo evaluate hearing outcomes and effects of stimulation rate on performance with the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant (Cochlear Americas, Denver, CO).STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGRandomized, controlled, prospective, single‐blind clinical study using single‐subject repeated measures (A‐B‐A‐B) design at 14 academic centers in the United States and Canada and comparison with outcomes of a prior device by the same manufacturer.PATIENTSSeventy‐one severely/profoundly hearing impaired adults.RESULTSSeventy‐one adult recipients were randomly programmed in two different sets of rate: ACE or higher rate ACE RE. Mean scores for Consonant Nucleus Consonant words is 57%, Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) sentences in quiet 78%, and HINT sentences in noise 64%. Sixty‐seven percent of subjects preferred slower rates of stimulation, and performance did not improve with higher rates of stimulation using this device.CONCLUSIONSSubjects performed well, and there was no advantage to higher stimulation rates with this device.SIGNIFICANCEHigher stimulation rates do not necessarily result in improved performance.