Search

AbstractObjectiveDesignStudy sampleResultsConclusionTo evaluate the role of Extended Scope (ES) audiologists in managing adult Ear Nose and Throat (ENT)/Otology waitlists and analyse patient re-presentation rate to the ENT service within 12 months of being discharged from the clinic.A retrospective cohort study assessing the efficacy of ES audiologists, measuring the discharge rate from ENT waitlists, the rate of escalation to ENT care, and the rate and reasons for any re-presentations to care.394 adult patients.Of the referred patients, 95% (n = 374) were deemed suitable for ES care. Of these, 75% were discharged without further ENT intervention, 20% required escalation to ENT, and 5% were returned to the waitlist. Only one patient re-presented for care within 12 months. The inclusion of patients with CHL/MHL and vestibular symptoms marked an expansion from our previous work. The re-presentation rate was notably lower compared to other allied health ES clinics.The ES Audiology clinic demonstrates a high discharge rate with a low incidence of patient re-presentation, highlighting the ES audiologists’ efficiency in managing non-urgent ENT cases. The study supports the continued use and expansion of ES roles to ensuring timely and quality care for patients on ENT waitlists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Hearing loss is a major global public health issue that negatively impacts quality of life, communication, cognition, social participation, and mental health. The cochlear implant (CI) is the most efficacious treatment for severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss. However, variability in outcomes remains high among CI users. Our previous research demonstrated that the existing subjective methodology of CI programming does not consistently produce optimal stimulation for speech perception, thereby limiting the potential for CI users to derive the maximum device benefit to achieve their peak potential. We demonstrated the benefit of utilising the objective method of measuring auditory-evoked cortical responses to speech stimuli as a reliable tool to guide and verify CI programming and, in turn, significantly improve speech perception performance. The present study was designed to investigate the impact of patient- and device-specific factors on the application of acoustically-evoked cortical auditory-evoked potential (aCAEP) measures as an objective clinical tool to verify CI mapping in adult CI users with bilateral deafness (BD). Methods: aCAEP responses were elicited using binaural peripheral auditory stimulation for four speech tokens (/m/, /g/, /t/, and /s/) and recorded by HEARLab™ software in adult BD CI users. Participants were classified into groups according to subjective or objective CI mapping procedures to elicit present aCAEP responses to all four speech tokens. The impact of patient- and device-specific factors on the presence of aCAEP responses and speech perception was investigated between participant groups. Results: Participants were categorised based on the presence or absence of the P1-N1-P2 aCAEP response to speech tokens. Out of the total cohort of adult CI users (n = 132), 63 participants demonstrated present responses pre-optimisation, 37 participants exhibited present responses post-optimisation, and the remaining 32 participants either showed an absent response for at least one speech token post-optimisation or did not accept the optimised CI map adjustments. Overall, no significant correlation was shown between patient and device-specific factors and the presence of aCAEP responses or speech perception scores. Conclusion: This study reinforces that aCAEP measures offer an objective, non-invasive approach to verify CI mapping, irrespective of patient or device factors. These findings further our understanding of the importance of personalised CI rehabilitation through CI mapping to minimise the degree of speech perception variation post-CI and allow all CI users to achieve maximum device benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To review the decision-making paradigm in the recommendations of BCI and aMEI overlapping candidacy for patients with conductive or mixed HL, and to determine if there are differences in hearing and quality of life outcomes between these implantable hearing devices. Retrospective data from patients receiving BCI or aMEI in the past decade were analysed. Patients were grouped into: 1. BCI candidates, 2. BCI or aMEI candidates, and 3. aMEI candidates. We compared outcomes and examined the impact of BC threshold, age at implantation, and duration of hearing loss on candidacy. 89 participants were included: 30 BCI, 37 aMEI, and 22 BCI or aMEI candidates. All groups performed similarly in aided sound field threshold testing. BCI group had lower speech scores in quiet compared to 'BCI or aMEI.' No significant differences were found in APHAB global scores. BC threshold, duration of hearing loss, and age at implantation had no significant effects. Outcomes were generally similar across groups, except for higher effective gain in the aMEI group. Our proposed patient pathway and decision-making approach facilitate candidate selection for aMEI and BCI, aiming to optimise outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To investigate the feasibility of using an extended scope (ES) audiology service to provide care to non-urgent adult patients waiting for an Ear Nose and Throat (ENT) appointment. Based on suitability criteria developed by the Audiology and ENT departments, an internal review of the ENT wait list identified patients who would be suitable for an ES audiology clinic. 220 non-urgent patients on the ENT wait list with hearing loss and/or tinnitus. A total of 220 patients were transferred from the ENT wait list to the ES audiology clinic: 200 (90.9%) were seen by the ES Audiologist and 20 (9.1%) patients self-discharged or did not attend the appointment. Out of the 200 patients seen, 175 (87.5%) were assessed, managed and discharged without the need for input from an Otologist. The remaining 25 (12.5%) patients needed an Otologist's input. This study has demonstrated the feasibility of an ES audiology clinic in a tertiary teaching hospital. Of those seen by ES audiologist, 87.5% were discharged from the ENT wait list without medical intervention. This model may represent an effective alternative pathway for lengthy outpatient waiting list management whilst providing patients with timely access to care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Introduction In the present case we report on the mismanagement of a patient misdiagnosed with otosclerosis, who was subsequently found to have enlarged vestibular aqueduct syndrome bilaterally. This highlights the need to not only be vigilant in pre-operative assessment of otosclerosis but also in post-operative investigations of stapedectomy failures. Case presentation Our patient, a 56-year-old Caucasian Australian woman, lost the hearing in her right ear following a stapedectomy approximately 25 years ago. It is thought that preoperative imaging was not conducted, while an inadequate (unmasked) audiogram was used to formulate the initial diagnosis of otosclerosis. The hearing in her left ear deteriorated to the point that a cochlear implant was now being considered for her right ear. Imaging performed as part of our pre-cochlear implant battery revealed bilateral enlarged vestibular aqueducts and thus the decision to proceed with a right cochlear implant was made following discussion with our patient and her family in regard to not only general surgical risks but specifically the remote risk that the surgical drilling required during the procedure could risk a deterioration of the hearing in her left ear because of the enlarged vestibular aqueduct on that side. Conclusions This report illustrates a case of misdiagnosis and mismanagement of bilateral enlarged vestibular aqueduct resulting in profound hearing loss. Fortunately our patient has been successfully implanted with a right cochlear implant with remarkable outcomes.

Background: While hearing aids for a contralateral routing of signals (CROS-HA) and bone conduction devices have been the traditional treatment for single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), in recent years, cochlear implants (CIs) have increasingly become a viable treatment choice, particularly in countries where regulatory approval and reimbursement schemes are in place. Part of the reason for this shift is that the CI is the only device capable of restoring bilateral input to the auditory system and hence of possibly reinstating binaural hearing. Although several studies have independently shown that the CI is a safe and effective treatment for SSD and AHL, clinical outcome measures in those studies and across CI centers vary greatly. Only with a consistent use of defined and agreed-upon outcome measures across centers can high-level evidence be generated to assess the safety and efficacy of CIs and alternative treatments in recipients with SSD and AHL.Methods: This paper presents a comparative study design and minimum outcome measures for the assessment of current treatment options in patients with SSD/AHL. The protocol was developed, discussed, and eventually agreed upon by expert panels that convened at the 2015 APSCI conference in Beijing, China, and at the CI 2016 conference in Toronto, Canada.Results: A longitudinal study design comparing CROS-HA, BCD, and CI treatments is proposed. The recommended outcome measures include (1) speech in noise testing, using the same set of 3 spatial configurations to compare binaural benefits such as summation, squelch, and head shadow across devices; (2) localization testing, using stimuli that rove in both level and spectral content; (3) questionnaires to collect quality of life measures and the frequency of device use; and (4) questionnaires for assessing the impact of tinnitus before and after treatment, if applicable.Conclusion: A protocol for the assessment of treatment options and outcomes in recipients with SSD and AHL is presented. The proposed set of minimum outcome measures aims at harmonizing assessment methods across centers and thus at generating a growing body of high-level evidence for those treatment options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE AND IMPORTANCE: This case report illustrates the ongoing extending criteria for cochlear implantation (CI). It reinforces the statement that patients who do not fulfill the standard criteria for CI should be carefully considered on an individual basis. Clinical presentation: The patient on this report presented with a ski-slope high-frequency hearing loss and chronic external ear canal infections. The latter precluded the consistent use of hearing aids with moulds. His speech discrimination in quiet and in noise was poor and his hearing loss was interfering with his ability to work. INTERVENTION: After years of frustration, this patient decided to risk losing his low-frequency residual hearing and was implanted with the new Nucleus((R)) CI422 (Cochlear Ltd). CONCLUSION: Hearing preservation was achieved and he gained a remarkable improvement in his hearing performance. It is thought that his outcomes are the result of the combination of hearing presentation surgery, electrode design, and intensive auditory training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective and importance This case report illustrates the ongoing extending criteria for cochlear implantation (CI). It reinforces the statement that patients who do not fulfill the standard criteria for CI should be carefully considered on an individual basis. Clinical presentation The patient on this report presented with a ski-slope high-frequency hearing loss and chronic external ear canal infections. The latter precluded the consistent use of hearing aids with moulds. His speech discrimination in quiet and in noise was poor and his hearing loss was interfering with his ability to work. Intervention After years of frustration, this patient decided to risk losing his low-frequency residual hearing and was implanted with the new Nucleus® CI422 (Cochlear Ltd). Conclusion Hearing preservation was achieved and he gained a remarkable improvement in his hearing performance. It is thought that his outcomes are the result of the combination of hearing presentation surgery, electrode design, and intensive auditory training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective and importance Herpes simplex virus (HSV) is reported to be the most common cause of viral encephalitis. Although extremely rare, reactivation of the virus has been reported following central nervous system surgery. To the best of our knowledge, there is no report in the literature that describes HSV encephalitis following cochlear implantation. Clinical presentation We report a case of meningo-encephalitis occurring 17 days after cochlear implantation using an electro-acoustic stimulation device, with oerioperative steroid medication. Intensive anti-viral therapy was given and the patient recovered from the acute illness over 2 weeks. Agitation and anxiety followed the encephalitis and subsequent progress with the cochlear implant was slow. Twelve months after cochlear implantation this patient shows a gradual and steady progress with her hearing rehabilitation. Conclusion Cochlear implantation surgery was either coincidental or was the trigger factor for reactivation of the HSV. Surgeons must be vigilant to post-surgical meningism symptoms particularly if patients have a history of herpes infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In the present case we report on the mismanagement of a patient misdiagnosed with otosclerosis, who was subsequently found to have enlarged vestibular aqueduct syndrome bilaterally. This highlights the need to not only be vigilant in pre-operative assessment of otosclerosis but also in post-operative investigations of stapedectomy failures.Case Presentation: Our patient, a 56-year-old Caucasian Australian woman, lost the hearing in her right ear following a stapedectomy approximately 25 years ago. It is thought that preoperative imaging was not conducted, while an inadequate (unmasked) audiogram was used to formulate the initial diagnosis of otosclerosis. The hearing in her left ear deteriorated to the point that a cochlear implant was now being considered for her right ear. Imaging performed as part of our pre-cochlear implant battery revealed bilateral enlarged vestibular aqueducts and thus the decision to proceed with a right cochlear implant was made following discussion with our patient and her family in regard to not only general surgical risks but specifically the remote risk that the surgical drilling required during the procedure could risk a deterioration of the hearing in her left ear because of the enlarged vestibular aqueduct on that side.Conclusions: This report illustrates a case of misdiagnosis and mismanagement of bilateral enlarged vestibular aqueduct resulting in profound hearing loss. Fortunately our patient has been successfully implanted with a right cochlear implant with remarkable outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Electrically evoked cortical auditory evoked potentials (ECAEPs) are central brain responses to auditory stimuli that correlate with postoperative cochlear implant (CI) hearing outcomes. They differ from electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) which are peripheral responses that can be elicited intraoperatively and may also predict CI hearing outcomes. It is not known to what degree ECAP and ECAEP responses are associated with each other. Such a correlation, if present, may allow for an earlier and more accurate prediction of postoperative hearing outcomes., Methods: This retrospective study involved 42 adult CI users. Threshold levels and amplitude growth function slopes of intraoperative ECAPs were compared to the latencies and peak-to-peak amplitudes of postoperative ECAEP responses at three different cochlear electrode array sites (apical, medial, and basal)., Results: A weak positive relationship was found between intraoperative ECAP thresholds and ECAEP N1-P2 peak-to-peak amplitude (r = 0.301, p = 0.005). Time between ECAP and ECAEP measurements was weakly correlated with P1-N1 peak-to-peak amplitude (r = 0.321, p = 0.002) and ECAEP N1-P2 peak-to-peak amplitude (r = 0.340, p = 0.001). ECAP amplitude growth function slopes varied by electrode location (χ2 = 26.701, df = 2, p = 0. 000002)., Conclusion: These results suggest that intraoperative ECAP responses do not robustly predict postoperative ECAEP responses, providing caution against the use of ECAPs as a predictive tool for CI hearing outcomes., (© 2024 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)