Vesole, Adam S.

Objective To identify the incidence of positive autoimmune laboratory markers in idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (iSSNHL) and its impact on hearing prognosis. Study Design Retrospective cohort database study Setting A collaborative national database (TriNetX) sourced from 79 large healthcare organizations in the United States. Patients Adults (≥18 years old) diagnosed with iSSNHL (ICD-10 H91.2) treated with systemic steroids. Interventions Autoimmune laboratory markers and salvage intratympanic (IT) steroids for SSNHL (CPT 69801). Main Outcome Measures 1) Positivity of autoimmune laboratory markers—rheumatoid factor (RF), ANCA, DNA double strand antibody (Ab), Sjogren syndrome A and B Abs, SCL-70 Ab, cardiolipin IgG Ab, Jo-1 Ab, ANA, mitochondria Ab. 2) Percent of patients that underwent salvage IT steroids, cochlear implantation, or hearing aid evaluation—all utilized as a proxy for hearing outcomes. Results Subjects with iSSNHL who had autoimmune testing (n = 17,413) were marginally more likely to be positive for at least one autoimmune laboratory marker compared to subjects without iSSNHL (n = 17,413; 23.0% vs. 21.4%, p = 0.0006). Statistical significance was lost after removing nonspecific autoimmune markers, however. Of those with iSSNHL who received systemic steroid treatment, subjects with positive autoimmune markers (n = 5,153) versus negative autoimmune markers (n = 5,153) underwent similar rates of salvage IT steroids (7.1% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.154), hearing aid evaluation (2.76% vs 2.47%, p = 0.354), and cochlear implantation (1.65% vs. 1.69%, p = 0.878). Conclusions Patients with iSSNHL have a marginally higher incidence of nonspecific positive autoimmune laboratory markers compared to those without iSSNHL; however, the presence of these markers does not predict treatment response or prognosis. Specifically, autoimmune markers did not predict the need for salvage IT steroids, nor CI and hearing aid use in iSSNHL. Autoimmune laboratory testing may be useful in iSSNHL patients with additional symptoms suspicious for an autoimmune disorder; however, a generalized screening is not recommended as it is unlikely to alter management or prognosis.

Objective To characterize the viability and volume of autologous free fat grafts over time, determine clinical/patient factors that may affect free fat graft survival and assess the clinical impact of free fat graft survival on patient outcomes in the translabyrinthine approach for lateral skull base tumor resection. Study Design Retrospective chart review. Setting Tertiary neurotologic referral center. Patients Forty-two adult patients who underwent translabyrinthine craniotomy for resection of a lateral skull base tumor with the mastoid defect filled by autologous abdominal fat graft and subsequently underwent more than one postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the brain. Intervention(s) Mastoid obliteration with abdominal fat after craniotomy, postoperative MRI Main Outcome Measure(s) Rate of fat graft volume loss, fraction retention of original fat graft volume, initial fat graft volume, time to steady-state fat graft retention, rate of postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, and/or pseudomeningocele formation. Results Patients were followed postoperatively with MRI for a mean of 31.6 months with a mean of 3.2 postoperative MRIs per patient. Initial graft size was a mean of 18.7 cm3 with a steady-state fat graft retention of 35.5%. Steady-state graft retention (<5% loss per year) was achieved at a mean of 24.96 months postoperatively. No significant association was found in multivariate regression analysis of clinical factors impact on fat graft retention and CSF leak/pseudomeningocele formation. Conclusions In the use of autologous abdominal free fat graft for filling mastoid defects after translabyrinthine craniotomy, there is a logarithmic decline in fat graft volume over time, reaching steady state in 2 years. Rates of CSF leak or pseudomeningocele formation were not significantly affected by initial volume of the fat graft, rate of fat graft resorption, nor the fraction of original fat graft volume at steady state. In addition, no analyzed clinical factors significantly influenced fat graft retention over time.