Search

BACKGROUND: Persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD) is a chronic balance disorder, which is characterised by subjective unsteadiness or dizziness that is worse on standing and with visual stimulation. The condition was only recently defined and therefore the prevalence is currently unknown. However, it is likely to include a considerable number of people with chronic balance problems. The symptoms can be debilitating and have a profound impact on quality of life. At present, little is known about the optimal way to treat this condition. A variety of medications may be used, as well as other treatments, such as vestibular rehabilitation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of non-pharmacological interventions for persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD). SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 21 November 2022.SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with PPPD, which compared any non-pharmacological intervention with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies that did not use the Bárány Society criteria to diagnose PPPD, and studies that followed up participants for less than three months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vestibular symptoms (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vestibular symptoms (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) generic health-related quality of life and 6) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Few randomised controlled trials have been conducted to assess the efficacy of different treatments for PPPD compared to no treatment (or placebo). Of the few studies we identified, only one followed up participants for at least three months, therefore most were not eligible for inclusion in this review. We identified one study from South Korea that compared the use of transcranial direct current stimulation to a sham procedure in 24 people with PPPD. This is a technique that involves electrical stimulation of the brain with a weak current, through electrodes that are placed onto the scalp. This study provided some information on the occurrence of adverse effects, and also on disease-specific quality of life at three months of follow-up. The other outcomes of interest in this review were not assessed. As this is a single, small study we cannot draw any meaningful conclusions from the numeric results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Further work is necessary to determine whether any non-pharmacological interventions may be effective for the treatment of PPPD and to assess whether they are associated with any potential harms. As this is a chronic disease, future trials should follow up participants for a sufficient period of time to assess whether there is a persisting impact on the severity of the disease, rather than only observing short-term effects.

BACKGROUND: Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. Aminoglycosides are sometimes administered directly into the middle ear to treat this condition. The aim of this treatment is to partially or completely destroy the balance function of the affected ear. The efficacy of this intervention in preventing vertigo attacks, and their associated symptoms, is currently unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of intratympanic aminoglycosides versus placebo or no treatment in people with Ménière's disease. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 14 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with a diagnosis of Ménière's disease comparing intratympanic aminoglycosides with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with follow-up of less than three months, or with a cross-over design (unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) change in hearing, 6) change in tinnitus and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs with a total of 137 participants. All studies compared the use of gentamicin to either placebo or no treatment. Due to the very small numbers of participants in these trials, and concerns over the conduct and reporting of some studies, we considered all the evidence in this review to be very low-certainty. Improvement in vertigo This outcome was assessed by only two studies, and they used different time periods for reporting. Improvement in vertigo was reported by more participants who received gentamicin at both 6 to ≤ 12 months (16/16 participants who received gentamicin, compared to 0/16 participants with no intervention; risk ratio (RR) 33.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.15 to 507; 1 study; 32 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and at > 12 months follow-up (12/12 participants receiving gentamicin, compared to 6/10 participants receiving placebo; RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.69; 1 study; 22 participants; very low-certainty evidence). However, we were unable to conduct any meta-analysis for this outcome, the certainty of the evidence was very low and we cannot draw any meaningful conclusions from the results. Change in vertigo Again, two studies assessed this outcome, but used different methods of measuring vertigo and assessed the outcome at different time points. We were therefore unable to carry out any meta-analysis or draw any meaningful conclusions from the results. Global scores of vertigo were lower for those who received gentamicin at both 6 to ≤ 12 months (mean difference (MD) -1 point, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.32; 1 study; 26 participants; very low-certainty evidence; four-point scale; minimally clinically important difference presumed to be one point) and at > 12 months (MD -1.8 points, 95% CI -2.49 to -1.11; 1 study; 26 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Vertigo frequency was also lower at > 12 months for those who received gentamicin (0 attacks per year in participants receiving gentamicin compared to 11 attacks per year for those receiving placebo; 1 study; 22 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events None of the included studies provided information on the total number of participants who experienced a serious adverse event. It is unclear whether this is because no adverse events occurred, or because they were not assessed or reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for the use of intratympanic gentamicin in the treatment of Ménière's disease is very uncertain. This is primarily due to the fact that there are few published RCTs in this area, and all the studies we identified enrolled a very small number of participants. As the studies assessed different outcomes, using different methods, and reported at different time points, we were not able to pool the results to obtain more reliable estimates of the efficacy of this treatment. More people may report an improvement in vertigo following gentamicin treatment, and scores of vertigo symptoms may also improve. However, the limitations of the evidence mean that we cannot be sure of these effects. Although there is the potential for intratympanic gentamicin to cause harm (for example, hearing loss) we did not find any information about the risks of treatment in this review. Consensus on the appropriate outcomes to measure in studies of Ménière's disease is needed (i.e. a core outcome set) in order to guide future studies in this area and enable meta-analysis of the results. This must include appropriate consideration of the potential harms of treatment, as well as the benefits.

BACKGROUND: Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. It is often treated with medication, but different interventions are sometimes used. Positive pressure therapy is a treatment that creates small pressure pulses, generated by a pump that is attached to tubing placed in the ear canal. It is typically used for a few minutes, several times per day. The underlying cause of Ménière's disease is unknown, as is the way in which this treatment may work. The efficacy of this intervention at preventing vertigo attacks, and their associated symptoms, is currently unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of positive pressure therapy versus placebo or no treatment in people with Ménière's disease. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 14 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with a diagnosis of Ménière's disease comparing positive pressure therapy with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with follow-up of less than three months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) change in hearing, 6) change in tinnitus and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies with a total of 238 participants, all of which compared positive pressure using the Meniett device to sham treatment. The duration of follow-up was a maximum of four months. Improvement in vertigo A single study assessed whether participants had an improvement in the frequency of their vertigo whilst using positive pressure therapy, therefore we are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the results. Change in vertigo Only one study reported on the change in vertigo symptoms using a global score (at 3 to < 6 months), so we are again unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. All three studies reported on the change in the frequency of vertigo. The summary effect showed that people receiving positive pressure therapy had, on average, 0.84 fewer days per month affected by vertigo (95% confidence interval from 2.12 days fewer to 0.45 days more; 3 studies; 202 participants). However, the evidence on the change in vertigo frequency was of very low certainty, therefore there is great uncertainty in this estimate. Serious adverse events None of the included studies provided information on the number of people who experienced serious adverse events. It is unclear whether this is because no adverse events occurred, or whether they were not assessed and reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for positive pressure therapy for Ménière's disease is very uncertain. There are few RCTs that compare this intervention to placebo or no treatment, and the evidence that is currently available from these studies is of low or very low certainty. This means that we have very low confidence that the effects reported are accurate estimates of the true effect of these interventions. Consensus on the appropriate outcomes to measure in studies of Ménière's disease is needed (i.e. a core outcome set) in order to guide future studies in this area and enable meta-analyses of the results. This must include appropriate consideration of the potential harms of treatment, as well as the benefits.

Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the benefits and harms of systemic pharmacological interventions for Ménière's disease.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of autoinflation for otitis media with effusion (OME) in children.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of topical and oral steroids for otitis media with effusion (OME) in children.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of ventilation tubes (grommets) for otitis media with effusion in children.

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:. To assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions used to relieve acute attacks of vestibular migraine.

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:. To assess the benefits and harms of non-pharmacological interventions for persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD).

BackgroundPersistent postural‐perceptual dizziness (PPPD) is a chronic balance disorder, which is characterised by subjective unsteadiness or dizziness that is worse on standing and with visual stimulation. The condition was only recently defined and therefore the prevalence is currently unknown. However, it is likely to include a considerable number of people with chronic balance problems. The symptoms can be debilitating and have a profound impact on quality of life. At present, little is known about the optimal way to treat this condition. A variety of medications may be used, as well as other treatments, such as vestibular rehabilitation. ObjectivesTo evaluate the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions for persistent postural‐perceptual dizziness (PPPD). Search methodsThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 21 November 2022.Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi‐RCTs in adults with PPPD, which compared selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies that did not use the Bárány Society criteria to diagnose PPPD and studies that followed up participants for less than three months. Data collection and analysisWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vestibular symptoms (assessed as a dichotomous outcome ‐ improved or not improved), 2) change in vestibular symptoms (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease‐specific health‐related quality of life, 5) generic health‐related quality of life and 6) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Main resultsWe identified no studies that met our inclusion criteria.Authors' conclusionsAt present, there is no evidence from placebo‐controlled randomised trials regarding pharmacological treatments ‐ specifically SSRIs and SNRIs ‐ for PPPD. Consequently, there is great uncertainty over the use of these treatments for this condition. Further work is needed to establish whether any treatments are effective at improving the symptoms of PPPD, and whether their use is associated with any adverse effects.

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:. To assess the benefits and harms of non-pharmacological treatments used for prophylaxis of vestibular migraine.

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:. To assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatments used for prophylaxis of vestibular migraine.

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:. To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of interventions that have been used to treat post-viral olfactory dysfunction.

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:. To assess the benefits and harms of intratympanic destructive interventions (aminoglycosides) for Ménière's disease.

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:. To assess the benefits and harms of positive pressure therapy for Ménière's disease.

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:. To assess the benefits and harms of intratympanic corticosteroids for Ménière's disease.

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:. To assess the benefits and harms of surgical interventions for Ménière's disease.

BACKGROUND: Olfactory dysfunction is an early and sensitive marker of COVID‐19 infection. Although self‐limiting in the majority of cases, when hyposmia or anosmia persists it can have a profound effect on quality of life. Little guidance exists on the treatment of post‐COVID‐19 olfactory dysfunction, however several strategies have been proposed from the evidence relating to the treatment of post‐viral anosmia (such as medication or olfactory training). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of interventions that have been used, or proposed, to treat persisting olfactory dysfunction due to COVID‐19 infection. A secondary objective is to keep the evidence up‐to‐date, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register; Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished studies. The date of the search was 16 December 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials including participants who had symptoms of olfactory disturbance following COVID‐19 infection. Only individuals who had symptoms for at least four weeks were included in this review. Studies compared any intervention with no treatment or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Primary outcomes were the recovery of sense of smell, disease‐related quality of life and serious adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were the change in sense of smell, general quality of life, prevalence of parosmia and other adverse effects (including nosebleeds/bloody discharge). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included one study with 18 participants, which compared the use of a 15‐day course of oral steroids combined with nasal irrigation (consisting of an intranasal steroid/mucolytic/decongestant solution) with no intervention. Psychophysical testing was used to assess olfactory function at baseline, 20 and 40 days. Systemic corticosteroids plus intranasal steroid/mucolytic/decongestant compared to no intervention Recovery of sense of smell was assessed after 40 days (25 days after cessation of treatment) using the Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center (CCCRC) score. This tool has a range of 0 to 100, and a score of ≥ 90 represents normal olfactory function. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this intervention on recovery of the sense of smell at one to three months (5/9 participants in the intervention group scored ≥ 90 compared to 0/9 in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 11.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 173.66; 1 study; 18 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). Change in sense of smell was assessed using the CCCRC score at 40 days. This study reported an improvement in sense of smell in the intervention group from baseline (median improvement in CCCRC score 60, interquartile range (IQR) 40) compared to the control group (median improvement in CCCRC score 30, IQR 25) (1 study; 18 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). Serious adverse events andother adverse events were not identified in any participants of this study; however, it is unclear how these outcomes were assessed and recorded (1 study; 18 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very limited evidence available on the efficacy and harms of treatments for persistent olfactory dysfunction following COVID‐19 infection. However, we have identified other ongoing trials in this area. As this is a living systematic review we will update the data regularly, as new results become available. For this (first) version of the living review we identified only one study with a small sample size, which assessed systemic steroids and nasal irrigation (intranasal steroid/mucolytic/decongestant). However, the evidence regarding the benefits and harms from this intervention to treat persistent post‐COVID‐19 olfactory dysfunction is very uncertain.

Loss of olfactory function is well recognised as a symptom of COVID-19 infection, and the pandemic has resulted in a large number of individuals with abnormalities in their sense of smell. For many, the condition is temporary and resolves within two to four weeks. However, in a significant minority the symptoms persist. At present, it is not known whether early intervention with any form of treatment (such as medication or olfactory training) can promote recovery and prevent persisting olfactory disturbance. This is an update of the 2021 review with four studies added.1) To evaluate the benefits and harms of any intervention versus no treatment for people with acute olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19 infection. 2) To keep the evidence up-to-date, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the latest search was 20 October 2021.We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with COVID-19 related olfactory disturbance, which had been present for less than four weeks. We included any intervention compared to no treatment or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were the presence of normal olfactory function, serious adverse effects and change in sense of smell. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of parosmia, change in sense of taste, disease-related quality of life and other adverse effects (including nosebleeds/bloody discharge). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included five studies with 691 participants. The studies evaluated the following interventions: intranasal corticosteroid sprays, intranasal corticosteroid drops, intranasal hypertonic saline and zinc sulphate. Intranasal corticosteroid spray compared to no intervention/placebo We included three studies with 288 participants who had olfactory dysfunction for less than four weeks following COVID-19. Presence of normal olfactory function The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of intranasal corticosteroid spray on both self-rated recovery of olfactory function and recovery of olfactory function using psychophysical tests at up to four weeks follow-up (self-rated: risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.68; 1 study; 100 participants; psychophysical testing: RR 2.3, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.63; 1 study; 77 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Change in sense of smell The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of intranasal corticosteroid spray on self-rated change in the sense of smell (at less than 4 weeks: mean difference (MD) 0.5 points lower, 95% CI 1.38 lower to 0.38 higher; 1 study; 77 participants; at4 weeks to 3 months: MD 2.4 points higher, 95% CI 1.32 higher to 3.48 higher; 1 study; 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence, rated on a scale of 1 to 10, higher scores mean better olfactory function). Intranasal corticosteroids may make little or no difference to the change in sense of smell when assessed with psychophysical testing (MD 0.2 points, 95% CI 2.06 points lower to 2.06 points higher; 1 study; 77 participants; low-certainty evidence, 0- to 24-point scale, higher scores mean better olfactory function). Serious adverse effects The authors of one study reported no adverse effects, but their intention to collect these data was not pre-specified so we are uncertain if these were systematically sought and identified. The remaining two studies did not report on adverse effects. Intranasal corticosteroid drops compared to no intervention/placebo We included one study with 248 participants who had olfactory dysfunction for ≤ 15 days following COVID-19. Presence of normal olfactory function Intranasal corticosteroid drops may make little or no difference to self-rated recovery at4 weeks to 3 months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.11; 1 study; 248 participants; low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes were assessed by this study. Data on the use of hypertonic saline nasal irrigation and the use of zinc sulphate to prevent persistent olfactory dysfunction are included in the full text of the review.There is very limited evidence available on the efficacy and harms of treatments for preventing persistent olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19 infection. However, we have identified a number of ongoing trials in this area. As this is a living systematic review we will update the data regularly, as new results become available.

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:. To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of interventions to treat olfactory dysfunction in people with COVID-19 infection. A secondary objective is to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.

​Background The clinical severity of disease in neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2) is variable. Patients affected with a constitutional truncating NF2 mutation have severe disease, while missense mutations or mosaic mutations present with a milder attenuated phenotype. Genotype-derived natural history data are important to inform discussions on prognosis and management. Methods We have assessed NF2 clinical phenotype in 142 patients in relation to the UK NF2 Genetic Severity Score to validate its use as a clinical and research tool. Results The Genetic Severity Score showed significant correlations across 10 measures, including mean age at diagnosis, proportion of patients with bilateral vestibular schwannomas, presence of intracranial meningioma, spinal meningioma and spinal schwannoma, NF2 eye features, hearing grade, age at first radiotherapy, age at first surgery and age starting bevacizumab. In addition there was moderate but significant correlation with age at loss of useful hearing, and weak but significant correlations for mean age at death, quality of life, last optimum Speech Discrimination Score and total number of major interventions. Patients with severe disease presented at a younger age had a higher disease burden and greater requirement of intervention than patients with mild and moderate disease. Conclusions This study validates the UK NF2 Genetic Severity Score to stratify patients with NF2 for both clinical use and natural history studies.

Sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) is a distressing condition that may lead to permanent disability with severe/profound deafness and tinnitus. While the aetiology varies, and is often idiopathic, urgent audiological assessment and management improves likelihood of hearing recovery.1 Bilateral vestibular schwannomas (VS) are a hallmark feature of neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2) occurring in over 95% of patients.2 Up to 12% of patients with VS may present with SSNHL.3 Sudden hearing loss should be urgently assessed to determine if conductive or sensorineural using physical examination, otoscopy, tuning fork tests or audiometry. If found to be sensorineural, urgent treatment with high-dose oral and/or intratympanic steroids are indicated. It is recognised that presentation of SSNHL to an ENT specialist is often delayed, with resulting delay in treatment which may lead to reduced chance of recovery.4 The reasons for this delay in presentation are likely to be multifactorial and may include a lack of awareness among patients and clinicians for the potential of sudden hearing loss to be sensorineural and a medical emergency. This most likely occurs due to the understandable initial assumption that new-onset hearing loss is most commonly due to a conductive cause such as wax impaction or glue ear following an upper respiratory illness. However, patients with NF2 are at significant increased risk of SSNHL due to their VS and the assumption that sudden hearing loss is most likely to be conductive is not appropriate and may lead to suboptimal management and outcomes for this otological …

An 8-year-old girl with a history of cyclin-dependent kinase-like 5 (CDKL5) disorder was presented to the emergency department with a short history of stridor and intermittent respiratory distress following eating a biscuit. She had a background of CDKL5 disorder causing neurodevelopmental delay, including being non-verbal, and refractory epilepsy for which she had received a vagal nerve stimulator (VNS) implanted 2 years prior. On initial examination she was noted to be maintaining her oxygen saturations but with intermittent worsening of her stridor and a barking cough. There was no clear preceding history of …

INTRODUCTION With the increase in shift pattern work for junior doctors in the NHS, accurate handover of patient clinical information is of great importance. There is no published method that forms the gold standard of handover and there are large variations in practice. This study aims to compare the reliability of three different handover methods. PATIENTS AND METHODS We observed the handover of 12 simulated patients over five consecutive handover cycles between SHOs on a one-to-one basis. Three handover styles were used and a numerical scoring system assessed clinical information lost per handover cycle. RESULTS After five handover cycles, only 2.5% of patient information was retained using the verbal-only handover method, 85.5% was retained when using the using the verbal with note taking method and 99% was retained when a printed handout containing all patient information was used. CONCLUSIONS When patient information is handed over by the verbal only method, very few facts are retained; therefore, this method should be avoided whenever possible. Verbal handover with note taking is shown to be an effective method of handover in our study, although we accept that this is an artificial scenario and may not reflect the reality of a busy hospital. Nearly all information is retained by the printed handout method but this relies on the handout being regularly updated.

Objective: Oncological surgical technological innovation has produced alternative hemostatic dissection techniques. Collateral tissue destruction and impact upon assessment of tumor resection margins from Harmonic and Coblation dissectors remains unknown. This study uses an ex-vivo animal model to quantify the collateral tissue destruction caused by the harmonic scalpel vs coblator wand dissection.Method: Incisions through cow tongue were made between defined parallel lines with each dissection technique. The residual tissue width was measured with vernier calipers and subtracted from the width of original tissue. A scalpel blade was used as a control.Results: The mean width of collateral tissue destruction for each modality was as follows: harmonic cutting 3.0 mm, harmonic coagulating 4.1 mm, coblation cutting 3.5 mm, harmonic cutting under tissue tension 1.2 mm.Conclusion: This study demonstrates that tissue destruction produced when using the harmonic scalpel and coblation is significant when compared ...

Otitis externa is thought to affect 10% of people at some stage, and can present in acute, chronic, or necrotising forms. Otitis externa may be associated with eczema of the ear canal, and is more common in swimmers, humid environments, people with absence of ear wax or with narrow ear canals, hearing-aid users, and after mechanical trauma.We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of empirical and prophylactic treatments for otitis externa? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to October 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).We found nine systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: oral antibiotics, specialist aural toilet, topical acetic acid drops or spray, topical aluminium acetate drops, topical antibacterials, topical antifungals, topical anti-infective agents, topical corticosteroids, and water exclusion.

Postlaryngectomy tracheostomal stenosis is a common complication. Stomal narrowing can be severe, requiring urgent management with dilatation of the stoma. There are numerous ways to achieve this, ranging from forcibly inserting a larger tracheostomy tube, using a graduated dilator, to surgical intervention in the form of a stomaplasty. We describe an alternative technique using a readily available cuffed tracheostomy tube.

Anticoagulation with warfarin is commonly used for prevention of thromboembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation. Bleeding is the main side effect of anticoagulation. We report the case of a 66-year-old man who developed two spontaneous synchronous upper airway haematomas while on warfarin therapy. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of a sublingual haematoma presenting simultaneously with supraglottic laryngeal haematomas. Upper airway haematomas are rare in the absence of a history of trauma but need to be urgently assessed due to their life-threatening potential. Clinicians should be aware of the possibility of haematomas involving the upper airway in patients on anticoagulant therapy, particularly if complaining of red flag symptoms such as acute onset dysphonia, odynophagia or airway/breathing difficulties.