Carly Misztal

Ms. Carly Misztal

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

6Years (2021-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CDCamron Davies
Camron Davies
JBJenna Bergman
Jenna Bergman
CMCarly Misztal
Carly Misztal
RRRenuka Ramchandran
Renuka Ramchandran
JMJeenu Mittal
Jeenu Mittal
Adrien EshraghiAdrien Eshraghi
Adrien Eshraghi
Objective: To systematically appraise the implementation of cochlear implantation (CI) in Usher Syndrome (USH) Types 1, 2, and 3 patients, and analyze who would benefit from CI. Data Sources: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library electronic databases from inception through June 2020 was performed. There were no language restrictions. Study Selection: The PRISMA strategy was followed. Included studies discuss USH patients who underwent CI regardless of age, nationality, or clinical subtype. All included studies report post-implantation functional, cognitive, or quality of life outcomes. Only reviews were excluded. Results: Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria. USH patients experienced improvements in PTA and speech perception and expression outcomes after CI, as well as improvements in phonological memory and quality of life measures. Overall, patients implanted at younger ages outperformed older patients in audiological testing. Similarly, patients with prolonged auditory deprivation had relatively poor performance outcomes in sentence recognition and speech detection following CI. Conclusions: Most USH patients benefit from CI. USH patients who undergo CI at younger ages generally achieve better hearing, speech, and cognitive outcomes. CI at older ages can still prove beneficial if appropriate auditory amplification is started at the right time. Further research is warranted to fill the gap in understanding regarding the gene mutations underlying the pathophysiology of USH that have favorable CI outcomes as well as the optimal time to perform CI.

29 November 2021 in Cancers
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CMCarly Misztal
Carly Misztal
CGCarlos Green
Carlos Green
CMChristine Mei
Christine Mei
RBRita Bhatia
Rita Bhatia
JTJaylou Marie Velez Torres
Jaylou Marie Velez Torres
CDChristine Dinh
Christine Dinh
The most common oral cavity cancer is squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), of which perineural invasion (PNI) is a significant prognostic factor associated with decreased survival and an increased rate of locoregional recurrence. In the classical theory of PNI, cancer was believed to invade nerves directly through the path of least resistance in the perineural space; however, more recent evidence suggests that PNI requires reciprocal signaling interactions between tumor cells and nerve components, particularly Schwann cells. Specifically, head and neck SCC can express neurotrophins and neurotrophin receptors that may contribute to cancer migration towards nerves, PNI, and neuritogenesis towards cancer. Through reciprocal signaling, recent studies also suggest that Schwann cells may play an important role in promoting PNI by migrating toward cancer cells, intercalating, and dispersing cancer, and facilitating cancer migration toward nerves. The interactions of neurotrophins with their high affinity receptors is a new area of interest in the development of pharmaceutical therapies for many types of cancer. In this comprehensive review, we discuss diagnosis and treatment of oral cavity SCC, how PNI affects locoregional recurrence and survival, and the impact of adjuvant therapies on tumors with PNI. We also describe the molecular and cellular mechanisms associated with PNI, including the expression of neurotrophins and their receptors, and highlight potential targets for therapeutic intervention for PNI in oral SCC.

8 February 2022 in Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ECErin R. Cohen
Erin R. Cohen
CMCarly Misztal
Carly Misztal
CDCortney Dable
Cortney Dable
CGCarmen Gomez‐Fernandez
Carmen Gomez‐Fernandez
RBRita G. Bhatia
Rita G. Bhatia
ZSZoukaa B. Sargi
Zoukaa B. Sargi

1 October 2021 in OTO Open
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
ECErin Cohen
Erin Cohen
SPStefanie Peña
Stefanie Peña
CMCarly Misztal
Carly Misztal
TIThomas Iglesias
Thomas Iglesias
MAMantero Alejandro
Mantero Alejandro
GTGiovana R. Thomas
Giovana R. Thomas
Objectives: As specialists of the upper airway, otolaryngologists are at high risk for COVID‐19 transmission. N95 and half‐face respirator (HFR) masks are commonly worn, each with advantages in functionality and comfort. In this study, physiologic and psychological parameters of prolonged N95 vs HFR wear were compared.Study Design: Prospective crossover cohort study.Setting: Single academic tertiary care hospital.Methods: A prospective crossover cohort study was performed. Healthy otolaryngology trainees and medical students (N = 23) participated and wore N95 and HFR masks continuously for 3 hours each on separate days. Various measures were analyzed: vitals, spirometry variables, scores on the State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory and HIT‐6 (Headache Impact Test–6), distress, and “difficulty being understood.”Results: The average age was 26.3 years (SD, 3.42). There were no significant differences in vital signs and spirometry variables between N95 and HFR wear. N95 wear was associated with decreases in oxygen saturation of approximately 1.09% more than with HFRs (95% CI, 0.105‐2.077). State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory scores increased more with HFR wear when compared with mean changes with N95 wear (95% CI, 1.350‐8.741). There were no significant differences in HIT‐6 scores or distress levels between masks. The proportions of participants reporting difficulty being understood was significantly higher with HFRs.Conclusions: Oxygen saturation decreases with prolonged N95 wear, but anxiety and difficulty being understood are greater with HFR wear. Although HFRs have less resistance to gas exchange, N95 respirators may produce less anxiety and distress in clinical situations. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the clinical significance of these differences.Level of Evidence: 2.