-
Otology & Neurotology : Official... Apr 2023To assess spatial hearing, tinnitus, and quality-of-life outcomes in adults with single-sided deafness (SSD) who underwent cochlear implantation. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess spatial hearing, tinnitus, and quality-of-life outcomes in adults with single-sided deafness (SSD) who underwent cochlear implantation.
DATABASES REVIEWED
PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched from January 2008 to September 2021 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
METHODS
Studies reporting spatial hearing, tinnitus, and quality-of-life outcomes in adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients (≥18 yr old) with SSD were evaluated. Study characteristics, demographic data, spatial hearing (speech recognition in noise, sound source localization), tinnitus (severity, loudness), and quality-of-life outcomes were collected.
RESULTS
From an initial search of 1,147 articles, 36 studies that evaluated CI use in 796 unique adults with SSD (51.3 ± 12.4 yr of age at time of implantation) were included. The mean duration of deafness was 6.2 ± 9.6 years. There was evidence of improvement for speech recognition in noise using different target-to-masker spatial configurations, with the largest benefit observed for target-to-masker configurations assessing head shadow (mean, 1.87-6.2 dB signal-to-noise ratio). Sound source localization, quantified as root-mean-squared error, improved with CI use (mean difference [MD], -25.3 degrees; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], -35.9 to -14.6 degrees; p < 0.001). Also, CI users reported a significant reduction in tinnitus severity as measured with the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (MD, -29.97; 95% CI, -43.9 to -16.1; p < 0.001) and an improvement in spatial hearing abilities as measured with the Spatial, Speech, and Qualities of Hearing questionnaire (MD, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.7 to 2.8; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Cochlear implantation and CI use consistently offer improvements in speech recognition in noise, sound source localization, tinnitus, and perceived quality of life in adults with SSD.
Topics: Hearing Loss, Unilateral; Humans; Cochlear Implantation; Cochlear Implants; Adult; Quality of Life; Sound Localization; Speech Perception; Tinnitus
PubMed: 36791341
DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003833 -
Cochlear Implants International Nov 2023Identify and evaluate the effectiveness of methods for improving postoperative cochlear implant (CI) hearing performance in subjects with single-sided deafness (SSD) and... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Identify and evaluate the effectiveness of methods for improving postoperative cochlear implant (CI) hearing performance in subjects with single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL).
DATA SOURCES
Embase, PubMed, Scopus.
REVIEW METHODS
Systematic review and narrative synthesis. English language studies of adult CI recipients with SSD and AHL reporting a postoperative intervention and comparative audiometric data pertaining to speech in noise, speech in quiet and sound localization were included.
RESULTS
32 studies met criteria for full text review and 6 (n = 81) met final inclusion criteria. Interventions were categorized as: formal auditory training, programming techniques, or hardware optimization. Formal auditory training (n = 10) found no objective improvement in hearing outcomes. Experimental CI maps did not improve audiologic outcomes (n = 9). Programed CI signal delays to improve synchronization demonstrated improved sound localization (n = 12). Hardware optimization, including multidirectional (n = 29) and remote (n = 11) microphones, improved sound localization and speech in noise, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Few studies meeting inclusion criteria and small sample sizes highlight the need for further study. Formal auditory training did not appear to improve hearing outcomes. Programming techniques, such as CI signal delay, and hardware optimization, such as multidirectional and remote microphones, show promise to improve outcomes for SSD and AHL CI users.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Cochlear Implantation; Hearing Loss, Unilateral; Speech Perception; Treatment Outcome; Hearing Loss; Cochlear Implants; Sound Localization; Deafness
PubMed: 37490782
DOI: 10.1080/14670100.2023.2239512 -
Otolaryngology--head and Neck Surgery :... Feb 2023To determine the clinical outcomes of adult patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) undergoing ipsilateral cochlear implantation. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To determine the clinical outcomes of adult patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) undergoing ipsilateral cochlear implantation.
DATA SOURCE
An electronic search of Medline and Embase articles.
REVIEW METHODS
A systematic review was performed with a search strategy developed by a licensed librarian to identify studies of adult patients with SSD who underwent ipsilateral cochlear implantation. Articles were managed in Covidence and evaluated by 2 independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed and data were extracted, including patient demographics, etiology of deafness, duration of deafness, and postoperative change in speech recognition, tinnitus, sound localization, and quality of life (QoL). A meta-analysis was performed, and pooled mean differences were calculated for each outcome of interest via random effects models by each outcome, as well as subgroup analyses by the individual clinical score used.
RESULTS
Of 2309 studies identified, 185 full texts were evaluated, and 50 were ultimately included involving 674 patients. Speech perception scores in quiet and noise, tinnitus control, sound localization, and QoL all significantly improved after implantation. Pooled outcomes demonstrated score improvements in speech perception (standardized mean difference [SMD], 2.8 [95% CI, 2.16-3.43]), QoL (SMD, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.45-0.91]), sound localization (SMD, -1.13 [95% CI, -1.68 to -0.57]), and tinnitus score reduction (SMD, -1.32 [95% CI, -1.85 to -0.80]).
CONCLUSIONS
Cochlear implantation in adults with SSD results in significant improvements in speech perception, tinnitus control, sound localization, and QoL.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Cochlear Implantation; Tinnitus; Quality of Life; Hearing Loss, Unilateral; Deafness
PubMed: 35230924
DOI: 10.1177/01945998221083283 -
The Laryngoscope Jan 2023It was previously suggested that patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) have a higher risk of cardiovascular disease. The aim of this study... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS
It was previously suggested that patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) have a higher risk of cardiovascular disease. The aim of this study is to determine if ISSNHL patients have an increased cardiovascular risk by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Libraries and Web of Science. Studies with a clear definition of ISSNHL, investigating an association between traditional vascular risk factors and ISSNHL were included. Adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, two reviewers extracted the data, assessed the risk of bias and performed the analysis of the collected evidence.
RESULTS
Nineteen case-control studies and two cohort studies were included (102,292 patients). Individual studies argued for higher prevalence of hypercholesterolemia, diabetes mellitus (DM) and higher blood pressure (HBP) in ISSNHL patients with a range of odds ratios (ORs) from 1.03 to 19. Pooled analysis of adjusted ORs revealed a significantly increased risk of ISSNHL for patients with hypertriglyceridemia (OR 1.54; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-2.02) and high levels of total cholesterol (TC) (OR 2.09; 95% CI 1.52-2.87 after sensitivity analysis), but not for HBP, DM, or high levels of low- and high-density lipoproteins.
CONCLUSION
An association between higher vascular risk profile and ISSNHL seems apparent in high levels of triglycerides (TG) and TC, but more studies are needed to confirm this hypothesis due to the high levels of data heterogeneity in the literature.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
NA Laryngoscope, 133:15-24, 2023.
Topics: Humans; Cardiovascular Diseases; Risk Factors; Hearing Loss, Sudden; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural; Heart Disease Risk Factors; Hypertension; Diabetes Mellitus; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 35467030
DOI: 10.1002/lary.30141 -
PloS One 2022Hearing loss (HL) can affect communication in complex ways. Understanding how adults with HL reflect on and conceptualise the way they listen (metacognition) is required...
BACKGROUND
Hearing loss (HL) can affect communication in complex ways. Understanding how adults with HL reflect on and conceptualise the way they listen (metacognition) is required if interventions, and the outcome measures used to evaluate them, are to address barriers to functional communication arising from HL.
OBJECTIVES
This study describes how adults with HL experience and report the processes, behaviours, and components of listening, as presented in published studies.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.
METHODS
Systematic searches identified English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles reporting the results of qualitative or mixed-methods studies of adults' with HL perceived listening abilities. Medline, PsychInfo, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to November 2021. Handsearching reference lists of included studies identified additional studies for inclusion. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) qualitative checklist was used to appraise studies' methodological quality. Data from included studies were analysed using thematic meta-synthesis. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of QUALitative (CERQual) approach assessed confidence in the review findings. Two reviewers independently completed all screening and quality appraisal. Thematic meta-synthesis and GRADE CERQual assessment was completed by one reviewer and confirmed by a second reviewer. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion.
RESULTS
Data from 46 studies were included in the review. Thematic meta-synthesis identified six descriptive themes: 1) perceived listening ability; 2) external modifiers; 3) psychosocial impacts of hearing loss; 4) communication partner perspectives; 5) self-efficacy for listening; and 6) cognitive load. GRADE CERQual ratings for descriptive themes ranged from low to moderate confidence. Descriptive themes were related by analytic themes of liminality and reciprocity.
CONCLUSIONS
Adults with HL provide in-depth accounts of components and processes of listening, with studies reporting both cognitive and affective experiences consistent with theoretical models of metacognition. The findings will inform content generation for a hearing-specific patient-reported outcome measure of perceived listening ability in everyday communication.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Qualitative Research; Hearing Loss; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Deafness; Self Efficacy
PubMed: 36282860
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276265 -
Audiology & Neuro-otology 2022Ménière's disease is characterized by recurrent episodes of vertigo, hearing loss, and tinnitus, often with a feeling of fullness in the ear. Although betahistine is...
BACKGROUND
Ménière's disease is characterized by recurrent episodes of vertigo, hearing loss, and tinnitus, often with a feeling of fullness in the ear. Although betahistine is thought to be specifically effective for Ménière's disease, no evidence for a benefit from the use of betahistine exists, despite its widespread use. Reassessment of the effect of betahistine for Ménière's disease is now warranted.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials.gov, ICTRP, and additional sources for published and unpublished trials, in which betahistine was compared to placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Our outcomes involved vertigo, significant adverse effect (upper gastrointestinal discomfort), hearing loss, tinnitus, aural fullness, other adverse effects, and disease-specific health-related quality of life. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 studies: 5 studies used a crossover design and the remaining 5 were parallel-group RCTs. One study with a low risk of bias found no significant difference between the betahistine groups and placebo with respect to vertigo after a long-term follow-up period. No significant difference in the incidence of upper gastrointestinal discomfort was found in 2 studies (low-certainty evidence). No differences in hearing loss, tinnitus, or well-being and disease-specific health-related quality of life were found (low- to very low-certainty of evidence). Data on aural fullness could not be extracted. No significant difference between the betahistine and the placebo groups (low-certainty evidence) could be demonstrated in the other adverse effect outcome with respect to dull headache. The pooled risk ratio for other adverse effect in the long term demonstrated a lower risk in favor of placebo over betahistine.
CONCLUSIONS
High-quality studies evaluating the effect of betahistine on patients with Ménière's disease are lacking. However, one study with low risk of bias found no evidence of a difference in the effect of betahistine on the primary outcome, vertigo, in patients with Ménière's disease when compared to placebo. The main focus of future research should be on the use of comparable outcome measures by means of patient-reported outcome measures.
Topics: Betahistine; Deafness; Humans; Meniere Disease; Syndrome; Tinnitus; Vertigo
PubMed: 34233329
DOI: 10.1159/000515821 -
Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology 2022To present scientific evidence, based on a systematic review of the literature, on the benefit of brainstem implants in auditory rehabilitation and language development... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To present scientific evidence, based on a systematic review of the literature, on the benefit of brainstem implants in auditory rehabilitation and language development in children.
METHODS
A systematic search was used to identify studies that contain information about the benefit of brainstem implants in the auditory rehabilitation and language development of children. The review was conducted based on a structured literature search, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) checklist. The search was carried out in the PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases, using the combination "Auditory brainstem implants" AND "Pediatric", without restriction of language, period, and location. The quality assessment of the articles was performed using the Study Quality Assessment Tools.
RESULTS
Regarding hearing, children with brainstem implants showed sound detection, access to most speech sounds, basic auditory perception skills, recognition of ambient sounds, recognition of some frequently used words and phrases, in addition to some closed-set word discrimination capability. Expressive and comprehensive language were identified in children using auditory brainstem implants, increasing significantly in the short and long terms in most cases; however, in some of the children, such skills remained stable.
CONCLUSION
The auditory brainstem implant can be considered an effective alternative for children with cochlear malformation and/or auditory nerve deficiency and for those who cannot benefit from cochlear implant surgery.
Topics: Child; Humans; Deafness; Auditory Brain Stem Implants; Cochlear Implantation; Language Development; Cochlear Implants; Hearing; Brain Stem; Speech Perception
PubMed: 36088255
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2022.07.004 -
Genetics in Medicine : Official Journal... Sep 2022Genes associated with nonsyndromic hearing loss are commonly included in reproductive carrier screening panels, which are now routinely offered in preconception and... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Genes associated with nonsyndromic hearing loss are commonly included in reproductive carrier screening panels, which are now routinely offered in preconception and prenatal care in many countries. However, there is debate whether hearing loss should be considered a medical condition appropriate for screening. This systematic review assessed research on opinions of those with a lived experience of deafness and the general public regarding genetic testing for deafness in the reproductive setting.
METHODS
Search of 5 online databases yielded 423 articles, 20 of which met inclusion criteria. We assessed the quality of each study, extracted data, and performed thematic analysis on qualitative studies.
RESULTS
Most studies indicated interest in the use of prenatal diagnosis for deafness. However, there were mixed views, and sometimes strongly held views, expressed regarding the reproductive options that should be available to those with an increased chance of having a child with deafness. Studies were small, from a limited number of countries, and most were too old to include views regarding preimplantation genetic testing.
CONCLUSION
There is a broad range of views regarding the use of reproductive options for deafness. Further research is essential to explore the benefits and harms of including nonsyndromic hearing loss genes in carrier screening.
Topics: Child; Deafness; Female; Genetic Testing; Humans; Pregnancy; Prenatal Diagnosis; Reproduction
PubMed: 35659827
DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.05.005 -
European Archives of... Jan 2014The number of non-neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2) indications for auditory brainstem implant (ABI) in the literature is increasing. The objective of this study was to... (Review)
Review
The number of non-neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2) indications for auditory brainstem implant (ABI) in the literature is increasing. The objective of this study was to analyze and discuss the indications for ABI. Retrospective chart review and systematic review were conducted at Quaternary referral skull base center and referring centers. Analysis of ABI cases with non-NF2 indications and systematic review presenting non-NF2 ABI cases were performed. Fourteen referred cases with ABI were identified. All cases had unsatisfactory results of ABI and all could have been rehabilitated with a cochlear implant (CI). Of these 14 cases, 9 improved with a cochlear implant, and 2 with a hearing aid, two are still planned for CI, one received bilateral CI, no ABI. In literature, we found 31 articles presenting 144 non-NF2 ABI cases with at least 7 different indications other than NF2. ABI should be restricted to those patients who have no other rehabilitation options. Patency of the cochlea and evidence of an intact cochlear nerve should be examined with imaging and electrophysiologic testing. Sometimes a CI trial should be planned prior to proceeding with ABI. We have shown that in many cases a CI is still possible and CI provided better results than ABI. In vestibular schwannoma in the only hearing ear, cochlear otosclerosis, temporal bone fractures, (presumed) bilateral traumatic cochlear nerve disruption, auto-immune inner ear disease and auditory neuropathy primarily CI are indicated. Traumatic bilateral cochlear nerve disruption is exceptionally unlikely. In cochlear nerve aplasia, testing should be performed prior to meeting indications for ABI. In malformations, ABI is indicated only in severe cochlear hypoplasia or cochlear aplasia.
Topics: Auditory Brain Stem Implants; Cochlear Implants; Contraindications; Deafness; Hearing Loss; Hearing Loss, Central; Humans; Neuroma, Acoustic; Ossification, Heterotopic; Otosclerosis; Treatment Outcome; Vestibulocochlear Nerve Diseases
PubMed: 23404468
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-013-2378-3 -
Ear, Nose, & Throat Journal Apr 2023Diabetes is associated with a risk of idiopathic sudden deafness. The main treatment of diabetic sudden deafness is systemic and topical application of steroids. Topical... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Diabetes is associated with a risk of idiopathic sudden deafness. The main treatment of diabetic sudden deafness is systemic and topical application of steroids. Topical steroid therapy reduces systemic adverse reactions compared with systemic therapy.
PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis design on the improvement value and recovery rate of pure tone mean hearing threshold (PTA).To investigate whether there is difference between local and systemic steroid treatment as the initial treatment for sudden deafness patients with diabetes.
METHODS
We searched databases from publication date to October 1, 2022 including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, web of science, CNKI, Wan fang Database, China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), and VIP information resource system. A systematic literature review was conducted on the efficacy and safety of local and systemic steroid therapy for diabetic sudden deafness. RevMan5.4 and stata14 software were used for Meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 23 studies were included in this study, covering 1777 patients, including 885 cases in the observation group (local steroid group) and 894 cases in the control group (systemic steroid group). Meta-analysis showed that there was a significant difference in the total effective rate of local and systemic steroid treatment for diabetic sudden deafness between groups (RR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.11-1.22, < 0.05). The effective rate in the observation group was higher than that in the control group. For the improvement of PTA, the difference between groups was statistically significant (RR = 6.60, 95% CI = 3.07-10.14, < 0.05). The improvement of PTA in the local steroid group was higher than that in the systemic steroid group. Subgroup analysis showed that there were significant differences between groups in hormones, drug administration, follow-up time and course of disease.
CONCLUSION
Topical steroid therapy is effective in the treatment of diabetic sudden deafness. Hormone methylprednisolone has high effective rate; the shorter the course of disease and the longer the follow-up time are, the higher the total effective rate will be. Tympanic injection is more effective than post-aural injection. Topical steroid injections are safer for hormonal side effect.
PubMed: 37039340
DOI: 10.1177/01455613231170090