Search

Currently, the guidelines for audiological and vestibular follow-up in children with congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) are not well-defined. The general recommendation is to evaluate hearing in all children with congenital CMV at the same intervals: once every 3–6 months up to 1 year of age, once every 6 months from 1 to 3 years of age, and once a year from 3 to 6 years of age. Additionally, there are no universally accepted protocols for the vestibular follow-up of children with congenital CMV, although video head impulse test (v-HIT) and cervical vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials (cVEMPs) are sometimes used. This narrative review critically evaluates existing audiological and vestibular follow-up approaches for children with congenital CMV, highlighting the need for personalized protocols. Tailoring follow-up schedules with different timing and methods based on risk factors, such as the trimester of maternal infection, CMV PCR results in amniotic fluid, and valganciclovir use, would indeed allow for more precise evaluations, timely interventions, and optimized resource allocation. This strategy would also alleviate the logistical and emotional burdens on families by ensuring that high-risk children receive more frequent and appropriate assessments and early interventions, while lower-risk children avoid unnecessary testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Bone-anchored hearing aids represent a valid alternative for patients with conductive/mixed hearing loss who cannot use hearing aids. To date, these devices have given good audiological results, thanks to various fitting prescription programs (i.e., National Acoustic Laboratories and Desired Sensation Level). The aim of this study is to compare 2 types of fitting algorithms (National Acoustic Laboratories and Desired Sensation Level) implemented for bone-anchored hearing devices. METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled 10 patients followed at our operative unit, suffering from bilateral symmetrical mixed hearing loss and who underwent bone-anchored hearing aid implantation. All patients experienced each prescriptive procedure, National Acoustic Laboratories and Desired Sensation Level, for 7 months (on average), and they were subjected to audiological tests and questionnaires to evaluate the best program. RESULTS: National Acoustic Laboratories and Desired Sensation Level prescriptions yielded similar results. Desired Sensation Level allowed less amplification of the low frequencies than the National Acoustic Laboratories prescription, and these differences were the only statistically significant. Desired Sensation Level allowed better disyllabic word and sentence recognition scores only in quiet and not in noisy conditions. The subjective questionnaires showed similar results. At the end of the trial sessions, more patients (60%) definitively chose the Desired Sensation Level program for their device. These patients were those with a worse hearing threshold. CONCLUSION: The 2 prescriptive programs allowed similar results although patients with a worse threshold seem to prefer the DSL program. This is the first evaluation of the 2 prescriptive programs, National Acoustic Laboratories versus Desired Sensation Level, for bone conduction devices available in the literature. Further studies are needed to confirm this initial finding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES: Asymmetric hearing loss is generally defined as a moderate-to-profound hearing loss in the poorer ear and a mild-to-moderate hearing loss in the better ear. Application of a bone conduction hearing aid is one of the possible treatments for the poorer ear in asymmetric hearing loss. However, the device essentially stimulates the contralateral better ear, precluding true binaural hearing. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the application and utility of bone-anchored hearing aids in the treatment of asymmetric hearing loss. MATERIALS and METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 215 implanted subjects in our clinic and extracted a series of 27 patients affected by asymmetric hearing loss and treated with bone-anchored hearing aids. All 27 subjects had a mixed hearing loss after middle ear surgery. The preoperative and postoperative audiological data of these patients were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: The audiological tests showed an improvement in the performance of hearing perception of sound and speech in quiet and noise. Moreover, the subjects have positively answered the questionnaires administered to evaluate subjective benefits. All subscales of the abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit and speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale showed a significant improvement with the device. CONCLUSION: Bone-anchored hearing aids are a suitable treatment for asymmetric hearing loss. When other devices cannot be utilized or are not indicated, the bone conduction devices may allow good audiological results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]