-
The Laryngoscope Apr 2022Enlarged vestibular aqueduct (EVA) is a congenital condition that can lead to various outcomes in pediatric patients including hearing loss and vestibular dysfunction.... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Enlarged vestibular aqueduct (EVA) is a congenital condition that can lead to various outcomes in pediatric patients including hearing loss and vestibular dysfunction. Our goal was to critically appraise the literature on the proportion of patients with EVA who report vestibular dysfunction, determine relevant risk factors for the development of these symptoms, and describe vestibular tests and interventions used to improve outcomes.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. We queried the EMBASE, Ovid Medline, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant literature. Studies were included if they had n > 10, reported vestibular symptoms or vestibular function testing in patients with EVA, and were published in English. Nonhuman studies, systematic reviews, and review articles were excluded.
RESULTS
Of 808 identified studies, 20 met inclusion criteria. Subjective vestibular symptoms included dizziness, episodic vertigo, and imbalance. Seventeen studies reported subjective vestibular symptoms, ranging from 2% to 71% of patients between studies. Seventeen studies performed some form of vestibular function test, including physical exam maneuvers (Dix-Hallpike), caloric testing, electronystagmography, and vestibular evoked myogenic potentials. Of those who had vestibular function testing, 7% to 92% had an abnormal result. Two studies identified head trauma as a risk factor. One study successfully treated patients with BPPV using the Epley maneuver, but other vestibular symptoms were not targeted with treatment.
CONCLUSION
The degree to which vestibular symptoms impact patients with EVA varies significantly. Performing vestibular function testing may help identify asymptomatic patients with vestibular dysfunction. Future studies should target improving treatment of vestibular symptoms in EVA patients. Laryngoscope, 132:873-880, 2022.
Topics: Child; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural; Humans; Retrospective Studies; Vertigo; Vestibular Aqueduct; Vestibule, Labyrinth
PubMed: 34397103
DOI: 10.1002/lary.29819 -
Journal of the European Academy of... Mar 2022The association between vitiligo and hearing loss has been noted but the specific frequencies and degrees of hearing impairment remain unclear. The objective of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The association between vitiligo and hearing loss has been noted but the specific frequencies and degrees of hearing impairment remain unclear. The objective of this systematic review was to investigate the relationship between vitiligo and hearing thresholds at various specific frequencies. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched MEDLINE and Embase for relevant studies from inception to 10th April 2021. Case-control studies, cross-sectional, or cohort studies that compared the frequency-specific hearing thresholds between vitiligo patients and age-matched non-vitiligo controls were included. There were neither language nor geographic limitations. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the risk of bias of included studies. The DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model was utilized in meta-analyses due to expected clinical heterogeneity. We included 9 case-control studies with 371 vitiligo patients and 349 controls, which were rated with low or unclear risk. We found neither relevant cross-sectional nor cohort studies. The meta-analysis showed that when compared with controls, vitiligo patients had significantly higher pure-tone hearing thresholds at 2000, 4000, and 8000 Hz. In conclusions, vitiligo patients are prone to high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; Cross-Sectional Studies; Deafness; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural; Humans; Vitiligo
PubMed: 34779053
DOI: 10.1111/jdv.17815 -
Frontiers in Neuroscience 2022Neuroplasticity following deafness has been widely demonstrated in both humans and animals, but the anatomical substrate of these changes is not yet clear in human...
Neuroplasticity following deafness has been widely demonstrated in both humans and animals, but the anatomical substrate of these changes is not yet clear in human brain. However, it is of high importance since hearing loss is a growing problem due to aging population. Moreover, knowing these brain changes could help to understand some disappointing results with cochlear implant, and therefore could improve hearing rehabilitation. A systematic review and a coordinate-based meta-analysis were realized about the morphological brain changes highlighted by MRI in severe to profound hearing loss, congenital and acquired before or after language onset. 25 papers were included in our review, concerning more than 400 deaf subjects, most of them presenting prelingual deafness. The most consistent finding is a volumetric decrease in gray matter around bilateral auditory cortex. This change was confirmed by the coordinate-based meta-analysis which shows three converging clusters in this region. The visual areas of deaf children is also significantly impacted, with a decrease of the volume of both gray and white matters. Finally, deafness is responsible of a gray matter increase within the cerebellum, especially at the right side. These results are largely discussed and compared with those from deaf animal models and blind humans, which demonstrate for example a much more consistent gray matter decrease along their respective primary sensory pathway. In human deafness, a lot of other factors than deafness could interact on the brain plasticity. One of the most important is the use of sign language and its age of acquisition, which induce among others changes within the hand motor region and the visual cortex. But other confounding factors exist which have been too little considered in the current literature, such as the etiology of the hearing impairment, the speech-reading ability, the hearing aid use, the frequent associated vestibular dysfunction or neurocognitive impairment. Another important weakness highlighted by this review concern the lack of papers about postlingual deafness, whereas it represents most of the deaf population. Further studies are needed to better understand these issues, and finally try to improve deafness rehabilitation.
PubMed: 35418829
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2022.850245 -
International Journal of Audiology Jan 2022Hearing loss (HL) is one of the most common disorders present at birth. Parents' management of their child's hearing aids (HAs) and regular follow-up with healthcare...
CONTEXT
Hearing loss (HL) is one of the most common disorders present at birth. Parents' management of their child's hearing aids (HAs) and regular follow-up with healthcare providers HA are fundamental components of effective intervention.
OBJECTIVE
The primary objective of this systematic review was to synthesise the current literature on HA use in the paediatric population, and the secondary objective was to review the factors associated with HA use.
METHODS
Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and LLBA from 2005 to 2019, were searched. Two reviewers individually screened potentially relevant articles over two phases.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies met this review criteria. Four studies reported HA use based on data logging records. In nine studies, the amount of HA use was evaluated based on parents' reports, and three studies concluded that parents overestimate their child's HA use. Age, degree of HL and parents' education level were the most frequently reported factors associated with a child's amount of HA use.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this review will provide a foundation for future studies on the importance of monitoring HA use and the impact of consistent HA use on the language development of children with HL.
Topics: Child; Deafness; Hearing; Hearing Aids; Hearing Loss; Hearing Tests; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Parents
PubMed: 34407727
DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2021.1962014 -
Laryngoscope Investigative... Apr 2022Establish anatomical considerations, audiological outcomes, and optimal management in patients with branchiootic/branchiootorenal syndrome (BO/BOR). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Establish anatomical considerations, audiological outcomes, and optimal management in patients with branchiootic/branchiootorenal syndrome (BO/BOR).
METHODS
Databases reviewed: Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Collection, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Clinical or radiological studies of patients with BOR syndrome describing either the audiological profile or anatomical changes were included. Articles in which BOR syndrome was associated with other syndromes, and those that were focused only on general and genetic aspects of BOR syndrome were excluded. Articles were assessed using Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) grading system and the Brazzelli risk of bias tool for nonrandomized studies.
RESULTS
Searches identified 379 articles. Of these, 64 studies met the inclusion criteria, reporting outcomes in 482 patients from at least 95 families. In 308 patients, hearing loss was categorized as sensorineural (29%), conductive (20%), and mixed (51%). Hearing outcomes were variable in terms of onset, pattern, and severity; ranging from mild to profound deafness. One hundred sixty-nine patients presented with inner ear anomalies, 145 had middle, and 151 had external ear abnormalities. In 44 studies, 58 ear operations were described. Mixed outcomes were reported in patients managed with hearing aids or middle ear surgery; however, successful cochlear implantation was described in all five cases.
CONCLUSION
The anatomical and audiological profiles of patients with BO/BOR are variable. A range of surgical procedures were described, however lacked objective outcome measures. Given the range of anatomical variants, management decisions should be made on an individual basis including full audiological and radiological assessment.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
NA.
PubMed: 35434312
DOI: 10.1002/lio2.749 -
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review Oct 2023Previous research suggests Deaf signers may have different short-term and working memory processes compared with hearing nonsigners due to prolonged auditory... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Previous research suggests Deaf signers may have different short-term and working memory processes compared with hearing nonsigners due to prolonged auditory deprivation. The direction and magnitude of these reported differences, however, are variable and dependent on memory modality (e.g., visual, verbal), stimulus type, and research design. These discrepancies have made consensus difficult to reach which, in turn, slows progress in areas such as education, medical decision-making, and cognitive sciences. The present systematic review and meta-analysis included 35 studies (N = 1,701 participants) that examined verbal (n = 15), visuospatial (n = 10), or both verbal and visuospatial (n = 10) serial-memory tasks comparing nonimplanted, Deaf signers to hearing nonsigners across the life span. Multivariate meta-analyses indicated a significant, negative effect of deafness on verbal short-term memory (forward recall), g = -1.33, SE = 0.17, p < .001, 95% CI [-1.68, -0.98], and working memory (backward recall), g = -0.66, SE = 0.11, p < .001, 95% CI [-0.89, -0.45], but no significant effect of deafness on visuospatial short-term memory, g = -0.055, SE = 0.17, p = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.28]. Visuospatial working memory was not analyzed due to limited power. Population estimates for verbal and visuospatial short-term memory were moderated by age wherein studies with adults demonstrated a stronger hearing advantage than studies with children/adolescents. Quality estimates indicated most studies were of fair quality, with only 38% of studies involving Deaf authors. Findings are discussed in the context of both Deaf equity and models of serial memory.
Topics: Adult; Adolescent; Child; Humans; Deafness; Hearing; Memory, Short-Term; Mental Recall; Sign Language
PubMed: 37012579
DOI: 10.3758/s13423-023-02282-6 -
The Laryngoscope Nov 2022To search for existing evidence of a beneficial effect of (val)ganciclovir on hearing in children with congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) infection and to identify future... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To search for existing evidence of a beneficial effect of (val)ganciclovir on hearing in children with congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) infection and to identify future research questions.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, searches were performed in PUBMED, EMBASE, and WEB OF SCIENCE on December 15, 2021.
METHODS
Studies providing ear-specific hearing results after treating children with cCMV-related hearing loss with (val)ganciclovir were retained. A meta-analysis [Peto odds ratio (OR), Review Manager 5.3] was performed to compare hearing outcome between treated and untreated children. The National Institutes of Health tool was used for quality assessment and heterogeneity was assessed with I statistics.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies with a total of 682 treated patients were included for the systematic review. Our meta-analysis showed that treating symptomatic children with hearing loss resulted in more hearing improvement [Peto OR 7.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.08-19.34] and less hearing deterioration (Peto OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.10-0.57). Relative to an improvement and deterioration rate of 9.4% and 28.2% in an untreated group, the rate of the treated group was 44.5% and 6.3%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
There is sufficient evidence in literature to support treatment with (val)ganciclovir of children with symptomatic cCMV and hearing loss. However, still today, there is insufficient evidence of the potential beneficial role of (val)ganciclovir on hearing outcome of children with isolated hearing loss, late-onset hearing loss, and asymptomatic cCMV. The urgent need for future prospective, randomized clinical trials still exists. A standardization of definitions and treatment protocols would create uniformity in future studies. Laryngoscope, 132:2241-2250, 2022.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Child; Cytomegalovirus; Cytomegalovirus Infections; Deafness; Ganciclovir; Hearing; Hearing Loss; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural; Humans
PubMed: 35072277
DOI: 10.1002/lary.30027 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2022Face coverings and distancing as preventative measures against the spread of the Coronavirus disease 2019 may impact communication in several ways that may...
INTRODUCTION
Face coverings and distancing as preventative measures against the spread of the Coronavirus disease 2019 may impact communication in several ways that may disproportionately affect people with hearing loss. A scoping review was conducted to examine existing literature on the impact of preventative measures on communication and to characterize the clinical implications.
METHOD
A systematic search of three electronic databases (Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL) was conducted yielding 2,158 articles. After removing duplicates and screening to determine inclusion eligibility, key data were extracted from the 50 included articles. Findings are reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews, including the PRISMA-ScR checklist.
RESULTS
Studies fell into three categories: Studies addressing the impacts of personal protective equipment (PPE) and/or distancing on communication in healthcare contexts ( = 20); studies examining the impact of preventative measures on communication in everyday life ( = 13), and studies measuring the impact of face coverings on speech using acoustic and/or behavioral measures ( = 29). The review revealed that masks disrupt verbal and non-verbal communication, as well as emotional and social wellbeing and they impact people with hearing loss more than those without. These findings are presumably because opaque masks attenuate sound at frequencies above 1 kHz, and conceal the mouth and lips making lipreading impossible, and limit visibility of facial expressions. While surgical masks cause relatively little sound attenuation, transparent masks and face shields are highly attenuating. However, they are preferred by people with hearing loss because they give access to visual cues.
CONCLUSION
Face coverings and social distancing has detrimental effects that extend well beyond verbal and non-verbal communication, by affecting wellbeing and quality of life. As these measures will likely be part of everyday life for the foreseeable future, we propose that it is necessary to support effective communication, especially in healthcare settings and for people with hearing loss.
Topics: COVID-19; Communication; Humans; Masks; Quality of Life; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 35419343
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.815259 -
The Laryngoscope Jul 2022To describe cochlear implantation (CI) outcomes, with speech perception, auditory, language, and parent-reported auditory and speech behaviors, in children with an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE(S)
To describe cochlear implantation (CI) outcomes, with speech perception, auditory, language, and parent-reported auditory and speech behaviors, in children with an enlarged vestibular aqueduct (EVA) and incomplete partition type 2 (IP-II) and compare to control children without inner ear malformations (IEMs) and to determine cerebrospinal fluid gusher rates and effect on outcomes.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and CINAHL databases were searched from inception to February 2020. Studies reporting relevant outcomes in children with EVA or EVA + IP-II and controls without IEMs undergoing CI were included. Mean differences in speech perception, auditory, and language scores between cases and controls were meta-analyzed. Gusher rates were determined by proportion meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Of 214 identified articles, 42 met inclusion criteria, evaluating 775 cases and 2,191 controls. Of -cases, 578 (74.6%) had EVA and 197 (25.4%) had EVA + IP-II. Cases showed a significant improvement in speech perception, auditory and language performance, comparable to controls. Parent-reported auditory and speech production behaviors outcomes were positive among cases and comparable to controls. Pooled gusher proportions in EVA and EVA + IP-II cases were 27.7% (95% CI: 17.6-39.1) and 48.6% (95% CI: 28.6-69.0), respectively, with a proportion difference of 20.9% (95% CI: 11.0-30.1). Gusher occurrence did not impact speech perception or language outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Outcomes in children with EVA or EVA + IP-II undergoing CI are favorable and largely comparable to outcomes in children with hearing loss undergoing CI without IEMs. Intraoperative gusher is more prevalent among children with EVA + IP-II as compared to iEVA. Gusher does not influence speech perception and language development outcomes.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
NA Laryngoscope, 132:1459-1472, 2022.
Topics: Child; Cochlear Implantation; Cochlear Implants; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural; Humans; Retrospective Studies; Vestibular Aqueduct
PubMed: 34233033
DOI: 10.1002/lary.29742 -
PloS One 2023Over 90% of deaf children are born to hearing parents who have limited knowledge about deafness and require comprehensive support and information to support and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Over 90% of deaf children are born to hearing parents who have limited knowledge about deafness and require comprehensive support and information to support and communicate with their deaf child. However, little is known about the systems that support hearing families with deaf children. We performed a scoping review to provide an overview of current literature on the topic.
METHODS
The protocol of the scoping review was prepared using the PRISMA statement guidelines for scoping reviews. Relevant search terms were used to identify eligible studies following discussion with the study's steering group. Databases searched were CINAHL, Medline, ProQuest Central and ASSIA, as well as grey literature from relevant journals and online sources. Included were studies published from 2000 to 2021 and available in English.
RESULTS
A search of databases identified 1274 articles. After excluding duplicates, screening titles and abstracts and full texts, 65 papers matched the identified inclusion criteria. Results included 1 RCT, 7 comparative studies, 6 literature reviews, 4 PhD theses, and 47 further empirical studies.
CONCLUSION
There is limited quality evidence on what supports hearing parents with deaf children. It is evident that further studies are needed to ensure comprehensive support is accessible and effective for hearing parents of deaf children.
Topics: Humans; Child; Hearing; Parents; Empirical Research
PubMed: 38011100
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288771