Fussell, Wanda L.

Objective: To determine the impact of modifiable surgical factors on ossiculoplasty outcomes after controlling for ear environment risk. Study Design: Multi-institutional retrospective review. Setting: Six tertiary care centers from 2011 to 2019. Patients Adults and children. Interventions: Ossiculoplasty, including synthetic ossicular replacement prosthesis, autograft interposition, bone cement repair, and mobilization. Main Outcome Measure: Correlation between modifiable surgical factors and pure-tone average air-bone gap (ABG) at most recent audiogram after controlling for preoperative risk using the statistically validated Ear Environment Risk (EER) score. Results: A total of 1,679 cases were included with a median follow-up time of 20 months (IQR, 5–51). After controlling for EER score, malleus engagement of prosthesis yielded favorable ABG versus direct contact to tympanic membrane without malleus engagement (beta = −2.4 dB [−3.8, −1.1], p < 0.001). For total ossicular replacement prostheses (TORP), use of a footplate prosthesis yielded favorable ABG as compared with no footplate prosthesis (−3.6 dB [−6.1, −1.1], p = 0.005). For synthetic prostheses, polyethylene prostheses had a less favorable ABG compared with full titanium or titanium with hydroxyapatite prostheses ( p < 0.05). In cases where the malleus was not engaged in reconstruction, amputation of the malleus head yielded worse ABG (+3.9 dB [1.2, 6.7], p = 0.005). There was no significant difference ( p > 0.05) in ABG for single-stage versus multistaged approach, use of a cartilage cap over the prosthesis versus no cartilage, use of bone cement to secure a PORP to the stapes versus no cement, mastoid cavity obliteration versus no obliteration, and incudostapedial joint reconstruction with joint prosthesis/bone cement versus synthetic PORP. Conclusions: With statistical correction for ear environment risk, several modifiable surgical factors are noted to impact ossiculoplasty hearing outcomes. Level of Evidence: 4.

ObjectiveTo determine which ear environment risk factors impact ossiculoplasty hearing outcomes and to generate a statistically‐valid grading system for ossiculoplasty outcome reporting.Study TypeRetrospective case series.MethodsA multi‐institutional database was generated from cases performed between 2011 and 2019. Preoperative and postoperative hearing thresholds were recorded alongside potential ear environment risk factors. Multiple variable linear regression statistical analyses of risk factors were applied to determine independent association with postoperative pure tone average air‐bone gap (PTA‐ABG). Significant factors were used to generate a statistically‐weighted grading scale of Ear Environment Risk (EER).Results1679 cases had a mean follow‐up time of 33.6 months (SD 36.3) and a mean postoperative PTA‐ABG of 21.2 (SD 12.8). Multiple revision status (p < 0.001), presence of canal wall down mastoidectomy cavity (p = 0.020), absent malleus (p < 0.001), absent stapes superstructure (p = 0.016), frequent otorrhea (p = 0.008), pediatric age (p < 0.001), and blunted/lateralized tympanic membrane (p = 0.003) were independently correlated with PTA‐ABG. These factors were incorporated into an EER Scoring System with four distinct risk groups wherein each risk group was significantly correlated with PTA‐ABG, and this grading system was better correlated with PTA‐ABG (Kendall's τ = 0.193) than other existing published grading scales.ConclusionGrading environment risk according to a novel EER scoring system generates meaningful risk groupings that correlate with ossiculoplasty postoperative PTA‐ABG, and this holds potential to frame reporting of hearing outcomes for future ossiculoplasty research.Level of Evidence3 Laryngoscope, 135:S1–S11, 2025

AbstractObjectivesSingle‐use rhinolaryngoscopes were brought to market in 2019 as an alternative to traditional reusable scopes and have garnered interest across settings given portability and potential cost advantages. While single‐use was previously evaluated compared to traditional devices, the overall impact to the consult experience for both users and patients has not been captured.MethodsEighteen residents performed consults with both single‐use and reusable rhinolaryngoscope systems on alternating weeks. A five‐question cumulative survey administered across three assessment points over a 12‐week period using a five‐point rating system to rate favorability. Residents and patients also completed four‐point scale surveys following procedure(s) to capture the consult experience. Statistical analyses were performed to measure significance differences between survey responses between the two systems.ResultsSingle‐use rhinolaryngoscopes received higher overall ratings compared with reusables across each metric captured including overall consult time (4.3 vs. 2.2, p < .001), multiscope consults (4.4 vs. 3.1, p < .001), patient communication (4.6 vs. 2.1, p < .001), teaching opportunities (4.6 vs. 2.1, p < .001), and overall ease of use (4.7 vs. 2.6, p < .001). Residents rated single‐use higher than reusable after each procedure in terms of ease of use (1.07 vs. 2.68, p < .001) and visual clarity (1.27 vs. 1.89, p = .003), while patients rated single‐use higher for understanding of illness (3.9 vs. 3.1, p < .001) and understanding of treatment rationale (3.9 vs. 3.1, p < .001).ConclusionResident and patient experience feedback favored single‐use rhinolaryngoscopes compared to reusable scope technology across multiple surveyed measurables. Single‐use rhinolaryngoscopes provide a viable tool for otorhinolaryngologist and other clinicians to perform rhinolaryngoscopy consults.Level of Evidence4.

Objective Hearing loss is increasingly recognized as a chronic disease state with important health sequelae. Although considered a central component of routine audiometric testing, the degree to which various patient factors influence speech discrimination is poorly characterized to date. The primary objective of the current work was to describe associations of cognitive performance, sociodemographic factors, and pure-tone audiometry with speech discrimination in older adults. Study Design Prospective study. Setting Olmsted County, Minnesota. Patients There were 1,061 study participants 50 years or older at enrollment in the population-based Mayo Clinic Study of Aging between November 2004 and December 2019 who underwent formal audiometric and cognitive testing included in the current investigation. Main Outcome Measures The primary outcome measure was word recognition scores (WRSs; measured as <100% vs 100% as well as continuous), with pure-tone averages (PTAs; 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 kHz), age, sex, years of education, state area deprivation index (ADI) quintiles, and global cognition z scores as explanatory features. Results The mean (SD) age among the 1,061 participants was 76 (9) years with 528 (50%) males. Participant age [OR (95% CI) for a 10-year increase of 1.8 (1.4–2.3), p < 0.001], male sex [OR = 2.6 (1.9–3.7), p < 0.001], and PTA [OR for a 10-dB hearing loss increase of 2.4 (2.1–2.8), p < 0.001] were all significantly associated with <100% WRSs, with the greatest explanatory ability attributable to the PTA. Years of education (p = 0.9), state ADI quintile (p = 0.6), and global cognitive performance (p = 0.2) were not associated with WRS. The multivariable model demonstrated strong predictive ability for less than perfect WRSs, with a c index of 0.854. Similar results were seen for WRSs analyzed as continuous, with the multivariable model resulting in an R 2 value of 0.433. Conclusions Although PTA exhibited the greatest influence on speech discrimination, advancing age and male sex both independently increased the likelihood of having worse speech discrimination among older adults, even after accounting for years of education, neighborhood-level socioeconomic disadvantage, and cognitive function. These findings help identify patient factors that can be instrumental when designing screening programs for adult-onset hearing loss.

Objective: To evaluate adverse events and feasibility of performing 1.5-T MRI in patients with cochlear implants (CI) and auditory brainstem implants (ABI). Setting: Single tertiary academic referral center. Patients: CI and ABI recipients undergoing 1.5-T MRI without internal magnet removal. Intervention(s): MRI after tight headwrap application. Main Outcome Measures: Adverse events, patient tolerance. Results: A total of 131 MR studies in 79 patients were performed, with a total of 157 study ears. Sixty-one patients (77%) had unilateral devices. Four patients (5%) underwent MRI with ABI magnets in place. Sixteen patients (20%) had MRI-compatible devices that did not require a head wrap. There were no instances of device stimulation, device malfunction, or excessive heating of the receiver-stimulator package. Magnet tilt requiring manual repositioning occurred during seven studies (4.5%) and magnet displacement requiring operative intervention occurred during seven studies (4.5%). Significant pain where imaging had to be discontinued occurred during three episodes (2%). No adverse events were noted among patients who underwent MRI with an MRI-compatible magnet. Conclusions: MRI with CI or ABI magnets in place is associated with a low prevalence of adverse events when performed in a controlled setting. Many partial magnet displacements can be corrected with firm manual pressure. Devices with magnets that align with the field within their housing were not associated with any adverse events and do not require immobilization of the magnet during the scan. These may be valuable in patients with known or anticipated need for MRI.