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.

Purpose: In cochlear implantation, thorough preoperative planning together with measurement of the cochlear duct length (CDL) assists in choosing the correct electrode length. For measuring the CDL, different techniques have been introduced in the past century along with the then available technology. A tablet-based software offers an easy and intuitive way to visualize and analyze the anatomy of the temporal bone, its proportions and measure the CDL. Therefore, we investigated the calculation technique of the CDL via a tablet-based software on our own cohort retrospectively.Methods: One hundred and eight preoperative computed tomography scans of the temporal bone (slice thickness < 0.7 mm) of already implanted FLEX28™ and FLEXSOFT™ patients were found eligible for analysis with the OTOPLAN software. Measurements were performed by two trained investigators independently. CDL, angular insertion depth (AID), and cochlear coverage were calculated and compared between groups of electrode types, sex, sides, and age.Results: Mean CDL was 36.2 ± 1.8 mm with significant differences between sex (female: 35.8 ± 0.3 mm; male: 36.5 ± 0.2 mm;p = 0.037), but none concerning side or age. Differences in mean AID (FLEX28: 525.4 ± 46.4°; FLEXSOFT: 615.4 ± 47.6°), and cochlear coverage (FLEX28: 63.9 ± 5.6%; FLEXSOFT: 75.8 ± 4.3%) were significant (p < 0.001).Conclusion: A broad range of CDL was observed with significant larger values in male, but no significant differences concerning side or age. Almost every cochlea was measured longer than 31.0 mm. Preoperative assessment aids in prevention of complications (incomplete insertion, kinking, tipfoldover), attempt of atraumatic insertion, and addressing individual necessities (hearing preservation, cochlear malformation). The preferred AID of 720° (two turns of the cochlea) was never reached, opening the discussion for the requirement of longer CI-electrodes versus a debatable audiological benefit for the patient in his/her everyday life.

Subjective promontory stimulation is used to evaluate cochlear implant (CI) candidacy, but the test reliability is low. Electrically evoked auditory brainstem response (EABR) can verify the functio...

Objective: The present study evaluated whether the poorer baseline performance of cochlear implant (CI) users or the technical and/or physiological properties of CI stimulation are responsible for the absence of masking release. Design: This study measured speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in continuous and modulated noise as a function of signal to noise ratio (SNR). Study sample: A total of 24 subjects participated: 12 normal-hearing (NH) listeners and 12 subjects provided with recent MED-EL CI systems. Results: The mean SRT of CI users in continuous noise was −3.0 ± 1.5 dB SNR (mean ± SEM), while the normal-hearing group reached −5.9 ± 0.8 dB SNR. In modulated noise, the difference across groups increased considerably. For CI users, the mean SRT worsened to −1.4 ± 2.3 dB SNR, while it improved for normal-hearing listeners to −18.9 ± 3.8 dB SNR. Conclusions: The detrimental effect of fluctuating maskers on SRTs in CI users shown by prior studies was confirmed by the current study. Concluding, the absence of masking release is mainly caused by the technical and/or physiological properties of CI stimulation, not just the poorer baseline performance of many CI users compared to normal-hearing subjects. Speech understanding in modulated noise was more robust in CI users who had a relatively large electrical dynamic range.

Objective: Stapes surgery is considered an effective treatment in otosclerosis, but controversy remains regarding predictors of surgical outcome. Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Tertiary referral center. Patients: One hundred sixty three cases of stapes surgery between 2012 and 2019 were reviewed. Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcome measures were relative hearing improvement (relHI), defined as preoperative minus postoperative air conduction divided by preoperative air-bone gap (ABG), as well as relative ABG closure (relABGc), defined as preoperative ABG minus postoperative ABG divided by preoperative ABG. Univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses were performed to determine independent predictors for these outcomes. Results: Higher preoperative bone conduction (BC) and primary surgery (compared with revision) were independently associated with increased relHI (p = 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively). Lower preoperative BC, higher preoperative ABG, primary surgery, and age were independently associated with increased relABGc (p = 0.0030, p < 0.001, p = 0.0214, and p = 0.0099, respectively). Sex did not predict surgical outcome. In patients with less than 20 dB preoperative ABG, likelihood of negative relABGc was increased (compared with 20–30 dB or >30 dB preoperative ABG, p = 0.0292, Fisher's exact test). This tendency was not significant for relHI (p = 0.074). Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that calculating HI and ABGc in relation to preoperative ABG can reliably predict outcomes of stapes surgery. Both primary and revision stapes surgery are effective treatment options, but relative improvement is higher in primary cases. Preoperative BC, preoperative ABG, and age predict surgical outcomes as well. Otosclerosis patients with low preoperative ABG, especially less than 20 dB, should be counseled and selected cautiously regarding stapes surgery.