Zwolan, Teresa A.

Hearing loss is a highly prevalent disease state affecting almost 1 in 5 individuals globally. Growing research shows that untreated or undertreated hearing loss carries significant long-term sequelae, including increased risk of social isolation, depression, and cognitive decline, among other ramifications. Limited awareness and common misperceptions among the general US adult population and primary care providers contribute to low rates of referral to hearing specialty clinics and underutilization of hearing aids, cochlear implants, and other rehabilitative devices. Comprised of diverse membership, the Hearing Health Collaborative (HHC) was formed in May 2021 to identify and overcome challenges impacting good health care practices and public policy on hearing care in connection with healthy aging. This editorial documents a recent outcome of the HHC derived from a structured A3 process. Specifically, initiative 2, a proposal to develop a simple, clinically anchored staging system primarily for use by frontline providers and patients, is presented. Unlike other common disorders that harbor long-term health sequelae, a corresponding pragmatic clinical staging system—leveraging precedent disease staging convention, based on clinically meaningful outcomes and prognosis for acquired hearing loss—does not exist. The development of this staging system will potentially allow for improved communication across providers and patients, facilitate referral pathways, and ultimately enable patient access to timely and appropriate care.

Objectives Evaluate the training background of surgeons performing high volumes of cochlear implants (CIs) and estimate the ratio of providers trained in otology/neurotology (O&N) to the number of traditional CI candidates and audiologists. Methods A retrospective review of US surgeon registration data from a single CI manufacturer was performed to determine CI volume based on surgeon training. The prevalence of traditional candidates for CIs was estimated from US census population data and compared with the number of O&N providers. The ratio of audiologists to O&N providers was estimated from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics and American Speech‐Language‐Hearing Association databases. Results From 2021 to 2023, a mean of 88% of providers performing ≥25 CIs per year and 90% performing ≥40 per year had training in O&N. All surgeons registering ≥100 implants per year were O&N providers. The mean percentage of O&N providers performing ≥25 CIs per year and ≥ 40 per year was higher than the percentage of General and Pediatric Otolaryngology providers performing the same volume: mean difference = 76%, p < 0.001 and mean difference = 79%, p < 0.001, respectively. The mean estimated prevalence of traditional CI candidates per O&N provider is 3,354 with an estimated mean of 32 audiologists (3.5 trained in CIs) per O&N provider. Conclusion 88% of high‐volume CI surgeons have fellowship training in O&N. To meet the current state of CI underutilization and anticipated growing population of CI candidates, we propose increasing the surgical capacity of O&N providers and the number of surgeons proficient in CIs. Level of Evidence NA Laryngoscope , 135:2146–2153, 2025

Background: No standard schedule for cochlear implant (CI) programming has been developed, and common practices may have CI recipients seen in excess of what is necessary. The objective of this study was to review evidence for a de-escalated, evidence-based schedule for adult CI programming. Methods: Systematic review was undertaken in March 2023 of PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL databases using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were included if (1) they evaluated an evidence-based programming/follow-up schedule in new adult CI patients or (2) they evaluated programming or outcomes in a longitudinal fashion such that they could inform CI follow-up strategies. Level of evidence was evaluated using the LEGEND evidence assessment tool. Results: Our review identified 940 studies. After screening with a priori inclusion criteria, 18 studies were ultimately included in this review. Of these, 2 demonstrated feasibility of de-escalated approaches to new adult CI programming. The remainder presented longitudinal speech and programming parameter data that demonstrated relative stability of both categories by 3 to 6 months post-activation. Conclusions: Overall, there is a paucity of literature evaluating any form of evidence-based CI programming or follow-up. Most applicable data derive from longitudinal outcomes featured in studies of other CI features, with only a handful of studies directly evaluating CI programming strategies over time. However, stability in outcomes and programming detailed in the available data supports consideration of a de-escalated programming paradigm that could primarily limit programming to the very early post-activation period (before 3 to 6 months) to enhance patient care and reduce operational strains on cochlear implant programs.

ObjectiveTo characterize the catchment area and patient profile of large cochlear implant (CI) centers in the United States.Study DesignMulti‐institutional retrospective case series.SettingTertiary referral CI centers.MethodsPatients who underwent CI surgery at 7 participating CI centers between 2015 and 2020 were identified. Patients’ residential zip codes were used to approximate travel distances and urban vs rural residential areas.ResultsOver the 6‐year study period (2015‐2020), 6313 unique CI surgical procedures occurred (4529 adult, 1784 pediatric). Between 2015 and 2019, CI procedures increased by 43%. Patients traveled a median 52 miles (interquartile range, 21‐110) each way; patients treated at rural CI centers traveled greater distances vs those treated at urban centers (72 vs 46 miles, P <. 001). Rural residents represented 61% of the patient population and traveled farther than urban residents (73 vs 24 miles, P <. 001). Overall, 91% of patients lived within a 200‐mile radius of the institution, while 71% lived within a 100‐mile radius. In adults, multiple regression analysis redemonstrated an association between greater travel distances and (1) older age at the time of CI and (2) residential rural setting (both P <. 001, r2 = 0.2).ConclusionsWhile large CI centers serve geographically dispersed populations, most patients reside within a 200‐mile radius. Strategies to expand CI utilization may leverage remote programming, telemedicine, and strategic placement of new centers and satellite clinics to ameliorate travel burden.

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