Jackler, Robert K

Objective To assess magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) safety of stapes prostheses. Data Sources Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched from inception to November 2021 following PRISMA guidelines. Review Methods Studies reporting evidence of stapes prosthesis displacement or interaction in adult or pediatric implant recipients undergoing MRI. Cadaveric, animal, and basic studies with nonhuman data were also included. Results From an initial search of 123 articles, 42 full-text studies were evaluated for eligibility and 19 studies that met the inclusion criteria were included. Motion artifact was reported in a few stainless steel prosthesis types in vitro; however, such displacement was not observed in human cadaver temporal bone studies and had no adverse reported outcomes. A small subgroup of patients in the 1980s received a ferromagnetic stainless steel stapes implant that was recalled and has not been used since 1987. Patients with implants performed in the 1980s should be directed to 1.5T scanners from an abundance of caution. Conclusion Modern (post-1987) stapes prostheses do not pose a risk in vivo when exposed to the magnetic fields of MRI scanners.

Abstract Objectives Two pilot studies of AR‐42, a pan‐histone deacetylase inhibitor, in human neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2), vestibular schwannomas (VS), and meningiomas are presented. Primary endpoints included safety, and intra‐tumoral pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD). Methods Pilot 1 is a subset analysis of a phase 1 study of AR‐42 in solid tumors, which included NF2 or sporadic meningiomas. Tumor volumes and treatment‐related adverse events (TRAEs) are reported (NCT01129193). Pilot 2 is a phase 0 surgical study of AR‐42 assessing intra‐tumoral PK and PD. AR‐42 was administered for 3 weeks pre‐operatively. Plasma and tumor drug concentrations and p‐AKT expression were measured (NCT02282917). Results Pilot 1: Five patients with NF2 and two with sporadic meningiomas experienced a similar incidence of TRAEs to the overall phase I trial. The six evaluable patients had 15 tumors (8 VS, 7 meningiomas). On AR‐42, tumor volume increased in six, remained stable in eight, and decreased in one tumor. The annual percent growth rate decreased in eight, remained stable in three, and increased in four tumors. Pilot 2: Four patients with sporadic VS and one patient with meningioma experienced no grade 3/4 toxicities. Expression of p‐AKT decreased in three of four VS. All tumors had higher AR‐42 concentrations than plasma. Conclusions AR‐42 is safe. Tumor volumes showed a mixed response, but most slowed growth. On a 40‐mg regimen, drug concentrated in tumors and growth pathways were suppressed in most tumors, suggesting this may be a well‐tolerated and effective dose. A phase 2 study of AR‐42 for NF2‐associated tumors appears warranted. Level of Evidence 1b, 4.

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.