Search

Cochlear implantation (CI) for deafblindness may have more impact than for non-syndromic hearing loss. Deafblind patients have a double handicap in a society that is more and more empowered by fast communication. CI is a remedy for deafness, but requires revision surgery every 20 to 25 years, and thus placement should be minimally invasive. Furthermore, failed reimplantation surgery will have more impact on a deafblind person. In this context, we assessed the safety of minimally invasive robotically assisted cochlear implant surgery (RACIS) for the first time in a deafblind patient. Standard pure tone audiometry and speech audiometry were performed in a patient with deafblindness as part of this robotic-assisted CI study before and after surgery. This patient, with an optic atrophy 1 ( OPA1 ) (OMIM#165500) mutation consented to RACIS for the second (contralateral) CI. The applicability and safety of RACIS were evaluated as well as her subjective opinion on her disability. RACIS was uneventful with successful surgical and auditory outcomes in this case of deafblindness due to the OPA1 mutation. RACIS appears to be a safe and beneficial intervention to increase communication skills in the cases of deafblindness due to an OPA1 mutation. The use of RACIS use should be widespread in deafblindness as it minimizes surgical trauma and possible failures.

Background: Research on hereditary hearing impairment has had several boosts to identify deafness-causing genes. The number of studies regarding the diagnosis and treatment modalities of hereditary hearing impairment is enormous and increasing; however, little or no research has been conducted for evaluating the development of scientific output and trends in the field. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of centers that focus their research on hereditary hearing impairment and their scientific output., Methods: Bibliometric analysis of the publications related to hereditary hearing impairment published between 1980 and 2019 were used in this study, which were also indexed in Web of Science database., Results: The highest number of scientific articles on hereditary hearing impairment came from the United States, and it was also the most cited country. The University of Iowa is a leading center in the domain of hereditary hearing impairment in the world over the last 40 years. Fudan University, Central South University, and Harvard Medical School are also institutions that have had a focus on hereditary hearing impairment., Conclusions: There is a progressive increase in scientific papers on hereditary hearing impairment over the last 40 years that we have found in our bibliometric study. We identified key centers in the scientific research on hereditary hearing impairment in the world and also key journals that focus on hereditary hearing impairment. This information can facilitate new researchers in this field to seek collaboration with experienced partners, better synthesize the orientation and boundaries of the subject, and find target journals. Ultimately, we provided a certain benchmark value for key centers that perhaps should have a more prominent role in constructing experimental research or even clinical guidelines.

Background: Advances in gene therapeutic approaches to treat sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) confront us with future challenges of translating these animal studies into clinical trials. Little is known on patient attitudes towards future innovative therapies., Objective: We aimed to better understand the willingness of patients with progressive SNHL and vestibular function loss of autosomal dominant (AD) inheritance to participate in potential gene therapy trials to prevent, stabilize, or slow down hearing loss., Methods: A survey was performed in carriers of the P51S and G88E pathogenic variant in the COCH gene (DFNA9). Various hypothetical scenarios were presented while using a Likert scale., Results: Fifty three participants were included, incl. 49 symptomatic patients, one presymptomatic patient, and three participants at risk. Their attitude towards potential trials studying innovative therapies was overall affirmative, even if the treatment would only slow down the decline of hearing and vestibular function, rather than cure the disease. Among the different potential scenarios, the less invasive and less frequent treatments increased the likelihood to enroll. Daily oral medication and annual intravenous infusion were awarded the highest scores. The more invasive, more frequent, and more at-risk treatments were still likely to be accepted but decreased the willingness to participate. The presence of a placebo arm was met with the lowest scores of willingness to participate., Conclusions: Overall, most symptomatic DFNA9 patients would likely consider participation in future innovative inner ear therapy trials, even if it would only slow down the decline of hearing and vestibular function., Competing Interests: The authors disclose no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020, Otology & Neurotology, Inc.)

Objective: To analyze postoperative hearing performance and independent predictors of speech perception and to assess cochlear implant nonuse in adults with prelingual deafness who received an implant during adulthood., Design: Retrospective cohort study including all prelingually deaf adults who received a cochlear implant at the University Medical Center Utrecht between 2000 and 2013., Setting: Tertiary referral center., Patients: Included were a total of 48 prelingually deaf patients diagnosed with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss before the age of 2 years who received their implants during adulthood., Main Outcome Measures: Postoperative monosyllabic word and sentence recognition scores., Results: The average maximum postoperative monosyllabic word score for all subjects was 25% correct. Preoperative speech perception and the extent of preoperative residual hearing were both positive independent predictors of postoperative speech recognition, explaining 47% of the variance. Almost half of the population experienced only little (27%) or no benefit (21%) of their implants in daily communication. These patients were more likely to have either no or only low-frequency residual hearing. Eventually, all subjects without any benefit became non-user., Conclusions: Postoperative performance of adult, prelingually deaf cochlear implant candidates, with long-term deafness is dependent on their preoperative speech perception and residual hearing. Candidates who have negligible residual hearing are expected to have no or only limited postoperative benefit of their implants and are at risk of becoming nonusers.

Importance: Although current guidelines recommend cochlear implantation only for children with profound hearing impairment (HI) (>90 decibel [dB] hearing level [HL]), studies show that children with severe hearing impairment (>70-90 dB HL) could also benefit from cochlear implantation., Objective: To perform a systematic review to identify audiologic thresholds (in dB HL) that could serve as an audiologic candidacy criterion for pediatric cochlear implantation using 4 domains of speech and language development as independent outcome measures (speech production, speech perception, receptive language, and auditory performance)., Evidence Review: PubMed and Embase databases were searched up to June 28, 2017, to identify studies comparing speech and language development between children who were profoundly deaf using cochlear implants and children with severe hearing loss using hearing aids, because no studies are available directly comparing children with severe HI in both groups. If cochlear implant users with profound HI score better on speech and language tests than those with severe HI who use hearing aids, this outcome could support adjusting cochlear implantation candidacy criteria to lower audiologic thresholds. Literature search, screening, and article selection were performed using a predefined strategy. Article screening was executed independently by 4 authors in 2 pairs; consensus on article inclusion was reached by discussion between these 4 authors. This study is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement., Findings: Title and abstract screening of 2822 articles resulted in selection of 130 articles for full-text review. Twenty-one studies were selected for critical appraisal, resulting in selection of 10 articles for data extraction. Two studies formulated audiologic thresholds (in dB HLs) at which children could qualify for cochlear implantation: (1) at 4-frequency pure-tone average (PTA) thresholds of 80 dB HL or greater based on speech perception and auditory performance subtests and (2) at PTA thresholds of 88 and 96 dB HL based on a speech perception subtest. In 8 of the 18 outcome measures, children with profound HI using cochlear implants performed similarly to children with severe HI using hearing aids. Better performance of cochlear implant users was shown with a picture-naming test and a speech perception in noise test. Owing to large heterogeneity in study population and selected tests, it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis., Conclusions and Relevance: Studies indicate that lower audiologic thresholds (≥80 dB HL) than are advised in current national and manufacturer guidelines would be appropriate as audiologic candidacy criteria for pediatric cochlear implantation.

Objectives: International guidelines indicate that children with profound hearing loss should receive a cochlear implant (CI) soon after diagnosis in order to optimize speech and language rehabilitation. Although prompt rehabilitation is encouraged by current guidelines, delays in cochlear implantation are still present. This study investigated whether European countries establish timely pediatric CI care based on epidemiological, commercial, and clinical data., Methods: An estimation of the number of pediatric CI candidates in European countries was performed and compared to epidemiological (Euro-CIU), commercial (Cochlear ® ), and clinical (institutional) age-at-implantation data. The ages at implantation of pediatric patients in eight countries (the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Turkey, Portugal, and Italy) between 2005 and 2015 were evaluated., Results: From 2010 onwards, over 30% of the pediatric CI candidates were implanted before 24 months of age. Northern European institutions implanted children on average around 12 months of age, whereas southern European institutions implanted children after 18 months of age. The Netherlands and Germany implanted earliest (between 6 and 11 months)., Discussion: Implemented newborn hearing screening programs and reimbursement rates of CIs vary greatly within Europe due to local, social, financial, and political differences. However, internationally accepted recommendations are applicable to this heterogeneous European CI practice. Although consensus on early pediatric cochlear implantation exists, this study identified marked delays in European care., Conclusion: Regardless of the great heterogeneity in European practice, reasons for latency should be identified on a national level and possibilities to prevent avoidable future implantation delays should be explored to provide national recommendations.

Importance: The cost of bilateral cochlear implantation (BCI) is usually not reimbursed by insurance companies because of a lack of well-designed studies reporting the benefits of a second cochlear implant., Objective: To determine the benefits of simultaneous BCI compared with unilateral cochlear implantation (UCI) in adults with postlingual deafness., Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter randomized clinical trial was performed. The study took place in 5 Dutch tertiary referral centers: the University Medical Centers of Utrecht, Maastricht, Groningen, Leiden, and Nijmegen. Forty patients eligible for cochlear implantation met the study criteria and were included from January 12, 2010, through November 2, 2012. The main inclusion criteria were postlingual onset of hearing loss, age of 18 to 70 years, duration of hearing loss of less than 20 years, and a marginal hearing aid benefit. Two participants withdrew from the study before implantation. Nineteen participants were randomized to undergo UCI and 19 to undergo BCI., Interventions: The BCI group received 2 cochlear implants during 1 surgery. The UCI group received 1 cochlear implant., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the Utrecht Sentence Test with Adaptive Randomized Roving levels (speech in noise, both presented from straight ahead). Secondary outcomes were consonant-vowel-consonant words in silence, speech-intelligibility test with spatially separated sources (speech in noise from different directions), sound localization, and quality of hearing questionnaires. Before any data were collected, the hypothesis was that the BCI group would perform better on the objective and subjective tests that concerned speech intelligibility in noise and spatial hearing., Results: Thirty-eight patients were included in the study. Fifteen patients in the BCI group used hearing aids before implantation compared with 19 in the UCI group. Otherwise, there were no significant differences between the groups' baseline characteristics. At 1-year follow-up, there were no significant differences between groups on the Utrecht Sentence Test with Adaptive Randomized Roving levels (9.1 dB, UCI group; 8.2 dB, BCI group; P = .39) or the consonant-vowel-consonant test (median percentage correct score 85.0% in the UCI group and 86.8% in the BCI group; P = .21). The BCI group performed significantly better than the UCI group when noise came from different directions (median speech reception threshold in noise, 14.4 dB, BCI group; 5.6 dB, BCI group; P <.001). The BCI group was better able to localize sounds (median correct score of 50.0% at 60°, UCI group; 96.7%, BCI group; P <.001). These results were consistent with the patients' self-reported hearing capabilities., Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial demonstrates a significant benefit of simultaneous BCI above UCI in daily listening situations for adults with postlingual deafness., Trial Registration: trialregister.nl Identifier: NTR1722.

Objective: This review aimed to evaluate the additional benefit of pediatric cochlear implantation before 12 months of age considering improved speech and language development and auditory performance., Materials and Methods: We conducted a search in PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL databases and included studies comparing groups with different ages at implantation and assessing speech perception and speech production, receptive language and/or auditory performance. We included studies with a high directness of evidence (DoE)., Results: We retrieved 3,360 articles. Ten studies with a high DoE were included. Four articles with medium DoE were discussed in addition. Six studies compared infants implanted before 12 months with children implanted between 12 and 24 months. Follow-up ranged from 6 months to 9 years. Cochlear implantation before the age of 2 years is beneficial according to one speech perception score (phonetically balanced kindergarten combined with consonant-nucleus-consonant) but not on Glendonald auditory screening procedure scores. Implantation before 12 months resulted in better speech production (diagnostic evaluation of articulation and phonology and infant-toddler meaningful auditory integration scale), auditory performance (Categories of Auditory Performance-II score) and receptive language scores (2 out of 5; Preschool Language Scale combined with oral and written language skills and Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test)., Conclusions: The current best evidence lacks level 1 evidence studies and consists mainly of cohort studies with a moderate to high risk of bias. Included studies showed consistent evidence that cochlear implantation should be performed early in life, but evidence is inconsistent on all speech and language outcome measures regarding the additional benefit of implantation before the age of 12 months. Long-term follow-up studies are necessary to provide insight on additional benefits of early pediatric cochlear implantation., (© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Objectives/hypothesis: To evaluate the influence of the introduction of newborn hearing screening programs on the age at cochlear implantation in children., Study Design: Retrospective, multicenter cohort study., Methods: All 1,299 pediatric cochlear implant users who received their implants before the age of 5 years between 1995 and 2011 in the Medical University Hannover, Germany and University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands were enrolled in this study. Age at implantation and the number of children implanted within the first year of life was assessed for each center., Results: Age at cochlear implantation gradually declined over the years in both centers. The introduction of the screening resulted in significant decline in the age at implantation in the Netherlands; simultaneously, the number of children implanted within their first year of life increased significantly. Comparing 4-year epochs immediately before and after introduction of the screening, the mean age decreased from 2.4 to 1.2 years, and the percentage of early implanted children increased from 9% to 37%. In the German population, a similar effect of the introduction of the hearing screening program was absent., Conclusions: The introduction of the national newborn hearing screening program has reduced the age at cochlear implantation in young children in the Netherlands but not in Germany. Correspondingly, it resulted in an increase in the number of children implanted early in life. The difference between the Dutch and German population might be due to differences in the follow-up and referral after the hearing screening., (© 2014 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.)

Clinical and audiological examination was done in 2 Belgian families with autosomal dominant sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) linked to DFNA22. Nineteen subjects in family 1 had mild to moderate SNHL starting in the third decade. The hearing loss was characterized by a flat audiogram affecting all tested frequencies with statistically significant progression. In family 2 eleven subjects were affected with mild to moderate SNHL starting in the second decade. Most of them showed a flat audiogram, but some had mid-frequency hearing loss. Significant progression of thresholds was present at 4 and 8 kHz. For all hitherto known DFNA22 families the audiological and clinical characteristics were correlated with the molecular data. This study describes the phenotype of 2 Belgian families with SNHL linked to DFNA22, both with a pathogenic change in the deafness gene MYO6. The phenotypes of all hitherto reported DFNA22 families with mutations in the MYO6 gene have been studied and compared. It seems that genetic defects that spare the motor domain of the myosin VI protein have a milder phenotype., (Copyright 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Otosclerosis is a common form of hearing loss (HL) due to abnormal remodeling of the otic capsule. The genetic causes of otosclerosis remain largely unidentified. Only mutations in a single gene, SERPINF1, were previously published in patients with familial otosclerosis. To unravel the contribution of genetic variation in this gene to otosclerosis, this gene was re-sequenced in a large population of otosclerosis patients and controls. Resequencing of the 5′ and 3′ UTRs, coding regions, and exon–intron boundaries of SERPINF1 was performed in 1604 unrelated otosclerosis patients and 1538 unscreened controls, and in 62 large otosclerosis families. Our study showed no enrichment of rare variants, stratified by type, in SERPINF1 in patients versus controls. Furthermore, the c.392C > A (p.Ala131Asp) variant, previously reported as pathogenic, was identified in three patients and four controls, not replicating its pathogenic nature. We could also not find evidence for a pathogenic role in otosclerosis for 5′ UTR variants in the SERPINF1-012 transcript (ENST00000573763), described as the major transcript in human stapes. Furthermore, no rare variants were identified in the otosclerosis families. This study does not support a pathogenic role for variants in SERPINF1 as a cause of otosclerosis. Therefore, the etiology of the disease remains largely unknown and will undoubtedly be the focus of future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and objectives: The Pro51Ser (P51S) COCH mutation is characterized by a late-onset bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) and progressive vestibular deterioration. The aim of this study was to carry out a systematic review of all reported hearing and vestibular function data in P51S COCH mutation carriers and its correlation with age. Materials and methods: Scientific databases including Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Web of Science were searched to accumulate information about hearing outcome and vestibular function. Eleven genotype–phenotype correlation studies of the P51S COCH variant were identified and analyzed. Results: The SNHL starts at the age of 32.8 years. The Annual Threshold Deterioration is 3 decibel hearing loss (dB HL) per year (1–24 dB HL/year). Profound SNHL was observed at 76 years on average (60–84 years). 136 individual vestibular measurements were collected from 86 carriers. The onset of the vestibular dysfunction was estimated around 34 years (34–40 years), and vestibular deterioration rates were higher than those of the SNHL, with complete bilateral loss observed between 49 and 60 years. Conclusion: Both audiometric and vestibular data were processed with much different methodologies and pre-symptomatic P51S carriers were systematically underrepresented. Further delineation of this correlation would benefit cross-sectional and longitudinal study involving all (pre-symptomatic and symptomatic) P51S carriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives/hypothesis: To investigate hearing capabilities and self-reported benefits of simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation (BiCI) compared with unilateral cochlear implantation (UCI) after a 2-year follow-up and to evaluate the learning effect of cochlear implantees over time.Study Design: Multicenter randomized controlled trial.Methods: Thirty-eight postlingually deafened adults were included in this study and randomly allocated to either UCI or simultaneous BiCI. Our primary outcome was speech intelligibility in noise, with speech and noise coming from straight ahead (Utrecht-Sentence Test with Adaptive Randomized Roving levels). Secondary outcomes were speech intelligibility in noise with spatially separated sources, speech intelligibility in silence (Dutch phoneme test), localization capabilities and self-reported benefits assessed with different quality of hearing and quality of life (QoL) questionnaires. This article describes the results after 2 years of follow-up.Results: We found comparable results for the UCI and simultaneous BiCI group, when speech and noise were both presented from straight ahead. Patients in the BiCI group performed significantly better than patients in the UCI group, when speech and noise came from different directions (P = .01). Furthermore, their localization capabilities were significantly better. These results were consistent with patients' self-reported hearing capabilities, but not with the questionnaires regarding QoL. We found no significant differences on any of the subjective and objective reported outcomes between the 1-year and 2-year follow-up.Conclusions: This study demonstrates important benefits of simultaneous BiCI compared with UCI that remain stable over time. Bilaterally implanted patients benefit significantly in difficult everyday listening situations such as when speech and noise come from different directions. Furthermore, bilaterally implanted patients are able to localize sounds, which is impossible for unilaterally implanted patients.Level Of Evidence: 1b Laryngoscope, 127:1161-1168, 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]