Recently, the gut microbiome has gained considerable interest as one of the major contributors to the pathogenesis of multi-system inflammatory disorders. Several studies have suggested that the gut microbiota plays a role in modulating complex signaling pathways, predominantly via the bidirectional gut-brain-axis (GBA). Subsequent in vivo studies have demonstrated the direct role of altered gut microbes and metabolites in the progression of neurodevelopmental diseases. This review will discuss the most recent advancements in our understanding of the gut microbiome’s clinical significance in regulating blood-brain barrier (BBB) integrity, immunological function, and neurobiological development. In particular, we address the potentially causal role of GBA dysregulation in the pathophysiology of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) through compromising the BBB and immunological abnormalities. A thorough understanding of the complex signaling interactions between gut microbes, metabolites, neural development, immune mediators, and neurobiological functionality will facilitate the development of targeted therapeutic modalities to better understand, prevent, and treat ASD.

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.

The use and utility of cochlear implantation has rapidly increased in recent years as technological advances in the field have expanded both the efficacy and eligible patient population for implantation. This review aims to serve as a general overview of the most common hearing disorders that have favorable auditory outcomes with cochlear implants (CI). Hearing loss in children caused by congenital cytomegalovirus infection, syndromic conditions including Pendred Syndrome, and non-syndromic genetic conditions such as hearing impairment associated with GJB2 mutations have shown to be successfully managed by CI. Furthermore, cochlear implantation provides the auditory rehabilitation for the most common etiology of hearing loss in adults and age-related hearing loss (ARHL) or presbycusis. However, in some cases, cochlear implantation have been associated with some challenges. Regarding implantation in children, studies have shown that sometimes parents seem to have unrealistic expectations regarding the ability of CI to provide auditory rehabilitation and speech improvement. Given the evidence revealing the beneficial effects of early intervention via CI in individuals with hearing disorders especially hearing loss due to genetic etiology, early auditory and genetic screening efforts may yield better clinical outcomes. There is a need to better understand genotype-phenotype correlations and CI outcome, so that effective genetic counseling and successful treatment strategies can be developed at the appropriate time for hearing impaired individuals.

Objectives: To evaluate the outcomes of cochlear implantation in patients with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss due to inner ear malformations (IEMs) when compared to patients without IEMs. We discussed audiological outcomes such as open-set testing, closed-set testing, CAP score, and SIR score as well as postoperative outcomes such as cerebrospinal fluid gusher and incomplete insertion rate associated with cochlear implantation in individuals with IEMs.Data sources: PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE databases.Review methods: After screening a total of 222 studies, twelve eligible original articles were included in the review to analyze the speech and hearing outcomes of implanted patients with IEMs. Five reviewers independently screened, selected, and extracted data. The “Tool to Assess Risk of Bias in Cohort Studies” published by the CLARITY group was used to perform quality assessment on eligible studies. Systematic review registration number: CRD42021237489.Results: IEMs are more likely to be associated with abnormal position of the facial nerve, raising the risk of intraoperative complications. These patients may benefit from cochlear implantation, but audiological outcomes may also be less favorable than in individuals without IEMs. Furthermore, due to the risk of cerebrospinal fluid gusher, incomplete insertion of electrodes, and postoperative facial nerve stimulation, surgeons can employ precautionary measures such as preoperative imaging and proper counseling. Postoperative imaging is suggested to be beneficial in ensuring proper electrode placement.Conclusions: Cochlear implants (CIs) have the potential to provide auditory rehabilitation to individuals with IEMs. Precise classification of the malformation, preoperative imaging and anatomical mapping, appropriate electrode selection, intra-operative techniques, and postoperative imaging are recommended in this population.