Search

Introduction: Treatment of vestibular schwannoma (VS) has been extensively studied, but a gap in knowledge exists demonstrating how racial and socioeconomic status influence VS presentation. Our institution has a unique setting with a public safety net hospital (PSNH) and tertiary academic medical center (TAMC) in the same zip code, which we study to evaluate initial VS presentation disparities in patient populations presenting to these hospital settings., Methods: Retrospective chart review was performed of all adult patients (n = 531) presenting 2010 to 2020 for initial VS evaluation at TAMC (n = 462) and PSNH (n = 69). Ethnicity, insurance, maximum tumor size, audiometry, initial treatment recommendation, treatment received, and follow up were recorded and statistical analysis performed to determine differences., Results: Average age at diagnosis (51.7 ± 13.6 TAMC vs 52.3 ± 12.4 PSNH) and gender (58.4% TAMC vs 52.2% PSNH female) were similar. Patients' insurance (TAMC 75.9% privately insured vs PSNH 82% Medicaid) and racial/ethnic profiles (TAMC 67.7% White and 10.0% Hispanic/Latinx, vs PSNH 4.8% White but 59.7% Hispanic/Latinx) were significantly different. Tumor size was larger at PSNH (20.2 ± 13.3 mm) than TAMC (16.6 ± 10.0 mm). Hearing was more impaired at PSNH than TAMC (mean pure tone average 58.3 dB vs 43.9 dB, word recognition scores 52.3% vs 68.2%, respectively). Initial treatment recommendations and treatment received may include more than 1 modality. TAMC patients were offered 66.7% surgery, 31.2% observation, and 5.2% radiation, while PSNH patients offered 50.7% observation, 49.3% surgery, and 8.7% radiation. TAMC patients received 62.9% surgery, 32.5% observation, and 5.3% radiation, while PSNH patients received 36.2% surgery, 59.4% observation, and 14.5% radiation. Follow up and treatment at the same facility was not significantly different between hospitals., Conclusions: Hearing was worse and tumor size larger in patients presenting to PSNH. Despite worse hearing status and larger tumor size, the majority of PSNH patients were initially offered observation, compared to TAMC where most patients were initially offered surgery., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Objective: Determine hearing protection use in relation to occupational noise exposure, tinnitus, and audiometry-measured hearing loss in the United States from 1999 to 2016., Study Design: Cross-sectional study utilizing US National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999 to 2016 with occupation, reported occupational noise exposure, hearing protection use, tinnitus, and audiometry-measured hearing loss data. Subgroup analysis divided data into two cohorts early 2000s and 2010s., Setting: Population-based study using NHANES database capturing representative sample of US population., Participants: Individuals with complete data 1999 to 2004 (n = 10,347) and 2011 to 2012 with 2015 to 2016 (n = 9,383)., Interventions: Participants self-reported occupational noise exposure lasting more than 4 h/d for more than 3 months. Self-reported hearing protective device uses and tinnitus frequency. Audiometric hearing loss objectively measured., Main Outcome Measures: Hearing protection use. Secondary measures included self-reported bothersome tinnitus and audiometrically measured hearing loss., Results: Across occupations, reported occupational noise exposure was higher in 2010s [32%, 95% CI: 29.6-34.6%] than 2000s [12.5%, 95% CI: 11.2-13.9%], while hearing protection use remained low in 2000s [41.3%, 95% CI: 37.8-44.8%] and 2010s [32.8%, 95% CI: 29.8-35.8%]. Less hearing protection use was associated with absence of bothersome tinnitus. Factors associated with increased hearing protection use were younger age, male sex, college education or higher, and white race in a multivariate model., Conclusions: Reported occupational noise exposure appeared to increase from 2000s to 2010s yet hearing protection use remained stable at low use rate. As noise exposure is a major risk factor for hearing loss, significant education and reinforcement of appropriate hearing protection use for workplace noise exposures is necessary to preserve workers' hearing., Competing Interests: The authors disclose no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021, Otology & Neurotology, Inc.)