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.

Objective: To systematically review the symptoms reported by patients with bilateral vestibulopathy (BV) in clinical studies and case reports. This would serve as the first step in establishing a validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) for BV. Methods: A search on symptoms reported by patients with BV was performed in PubMed, and all publications covering these symptoms were included. Exclusion criteria comprised reviews and insufficient details about the frequency of occurrence of symptoms. Results: 1,442 articles were retrieved. 88 studies were included (41 clinical studies, 47 case reports). In consensus, 68 descriptions of symptoms were classified into 6 common and generic symptoms. Frequency of symptoms in clinical studies and case reports were reviewed, respectively; imbalance (91 and 86%), chronic dizziness (58 and 62%), oscillopsia (50 and 70%), and recurrent vertigo (33 and 67%). BV could be accompanied by hearing loss (33 and 43%) and tinnitus (15 and 36%). 15 clinical studies and 10 case reports reported symptoms beyond vestibular and hearing deficits such as limited social activities, depression, concentration, and memory impairment and reduced quality of life in general. Conclusion: The literature on BV symptomatology mainly focuses on classic symptoms such as imbalance and oscillopsia, while only few report additional symptoms such as cognitive memory impairment and performing dual tasks. In fact, none of the reviewed clinical studies and case reports provided a comprehensive overview of BV symptoms. To develop a validated PROM, qualitative research using semi-structured and unstructured interviews is needed to explore the full spectrum of BV symptoms.

Objective: To optimize the current diagnostic and treatment procedures for patients with bilateral vestibulopathy (BV), this study aimed to determine the complete spectrum of symptoms associated with BV.Method: A prospective mixed-method study design was used. Qualitative data were collected by performing semi-structured interviews about symptoms, context, and behavior. The interviews were recorded and transcribed until no new information was obtained. Transcriptions were analyzed in consensus by two independent researchers. In comparison to the qualitative results, quantitative data were collected using the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and a health-related quality of life questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L).Results: Eighteen interviews were transcribed. Reported symptoms were divided into fourteen physical symptoms, four cognitive symptoms, and six emotions. Symptoms increased in many situations, such as darkness (100%), uneven ground (61%), cycling (94%) or driving a car (56%). These symptoms associated with BV often resulted in behavioral changes: activities were performed more slowly, with greater attention, or were avoided. The DHI showed a mean score of severe handicap (54.67). The HADS questionnaire showed on average normal results (anxiety = 7.67, depression = 6.22). The EQ-5D-5L demonstrated a mean index value of 0.680, which is lower compared to the Dutch age-adjusted reference 0.839 (60–70 years).Conclusion: BV frequently leads to physical, cognitive, and emotional complaints, which often results in a diminished quality of life. Importantly, this wide range of symptoms is currently underrated in literature and should be taken into consideration during the development of candidacy criteria and/or outcome measures for therapeutic interventions such as the vestibular implant.

The objective of this study is to provide an overview of the prevalence of vestibular dysfunction in children with SNHL classified according to the applied test and its corresponding sensitivity and specificity. Data were gathered using a systematic search query including reference screening. Pubmed, Web of Science and Embase were searched. Strategy and reporting of this review was based on the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. Methodological quality was assessed with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. All studies, regardless the applied vestibular test, showed that vestibular function differs significantly between children with hearing loss and normal hearing (p < 0.05). Compared with caloric testing, the sensitivity of the Rotational Chair Test (RCT) varies between 61 and 80% and specificity between 21 and 80%, whereas this was, respectively, 71-100% and 30-100% for collic Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials (cVEMP). Compared with RCT, the sensitivity was 88-100% and the specificity was 69-100% for the Dynamic Visual Acuity test, respectively, 67-100% and 71-100% for the (video) Head Impulse Test and 83% and 86% for the ocular VEMP. Currently, due to methodological shortcoming, evidence on sensitivity and specificity of vestibular tests is unknown to moderate. Future research should focus on adequate sample sizes (subgroups >30).

Objectives: Hearing loss is considered an independent risk factor for dementia. Growing evidence in animal and human studies suggest that not only hearing loss but also vestibular loss might result in cognitive deficits. The objective of this study is to evaluate the presence of spatial and nonspatial cognitive deficits in patients with bilateral vestibulopathy. As different causes of bilateral vestibulopathy are associated with hearing loss, the objective is to evaluate if these cognitive deficits are due to the vestibular loss of the patients with bilateral vestibulopathy, or to their hearing loss, or both. Design: We performed a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. (1) Data sources: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library. (2) Study selection: Cross-sectional studies investigating cognitive performances in human patients with bilateral vestibulopathy confirmed by quantitative vestibular testing. (3) Data extraction: Independent extraction of articles by three authors using predefined data fields, including patient- and control characteristics and cognitive outcomes. Results: Ten studies reporting on 126 patients with bilateral vestibulopathy matched the inclusion criteria. Cognitive domains evaluated in patients with bilateral vestibulopathy included visuospatial abilities, memory, language, attention, and executive function. In only three studies, hearing performance of the included patients was briefly described. Nearly all studies demonstrated a significant impairment of spatial cognition in patients with bilateral vestibulopathy. In the few papers investigating nonspatial cognition, worse outcome was demonstrated in patients with bilateral vestibular loss performing cognitive tasks assessing attentional performance, memory, and executive function. Conclusions: Strong evidence exists that patients with bilateral vestibulopathy suffer from impaired spatial cognition. Recent studies even suggest impairment in other cognitive domains than spatial cognition. However, in all previous studies, conclusions on the link between cognitive performance and vestibular loss were drawn without taken hearing loss into consideration as a possible cause of the cognitive impairment.