Comparison of the benefits of cochlear implantation versus contra-lateral routing of signal hearing aids in adult patients with single-sided deafness: study protocol for a prospective within-subject longitudinal trial

Background Individuals with a unilateral severe-to-profound hearing loss, or single-sided deafness, report difficulty with listening in many everyday situations despite having access to well-preserved acoustic hearing in one ear. The standard of care for single-sided deafness available on the UK National Health Service is a contra-lateral routing of signals hearing aid which transfers sounds from the impaired ear to the non-impaired ear. This hearing aid has been found to improve speech understanding in noise when the signal-to-noise ratio is more favourable at the impaired ear than the non-impaired ear. However, the indiscriminate routing of signals to a single ear can have detrimental effects when interfering sounds are located on the side of the impaired ear. Recent published evidence has suggested that cochlear implantation in individuals with a single-sided deafness can restore access to the binaural cues which underpin the ability to localise sounds and segregate speech from other interfering sounds. Methods/Design The current trial was designed to assess the efficacy of cochlear implantation compared to a contra-lateral routing of signals hearing aid in restoring binaural hearing in adults with acquired single-sided deafness. Patients are assessed at baseline and after receiving a contra-lateral routing of signals hearing aid. A cochlear implant is then provided to those patients who do not receive sufficient benefit from the hearing aid. This within-subject longitudinal design reflects the expected care pathway should cochlear implantation be provided for single-sided deafness on the UK National Health Service. The primary endpoints are measures of binaural hearing at baseline, after provision of a contra-lateral routing of signals hearing aid, and after cochlear implantation. Binaural hearing is assessed in terms of the accuracy with which sounds are localised and speech is perceived in background noise. The trial is also designed to measure the impact of the interventions on hearing- and health-related quality of life. Discussion This multi-centre trial was designed to provide evidence for the efficacy of cochlear implantation compared to the contra-lateral routing of signals. A purpose-built sound presentation system and established measurement techniques will provide reliable and precise measures of binaural hearing. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN33301739 (05/JUL/2013

Identifying the deficiencies of current diagnostic criteria for neurofibromatosis 2 using databases of 2777 individuals with molecular testing

Purpose We have evaluated deficiencies in existing diagnostic criteria for neurofibromatosis 2 (NF2). Methods Two large databases of individuals fulfilling NF2 criteria (n = 1361) and those tested for NF2 variants with criteria short of diagnosis (n = 1416) were interrogated. We assessed the proportions meeting each diagnostic criterion with constitutional or mosaic NF2 variants and the positive predictive value (PPV) with regard to definite diagnosis. Results There was no evidence for usefulness of old criteria “glioma“ or “neurofibroma.” “Ependymoma” had 100% PPV and high levels of confirmed NF2 diagnosis (67.7%). Those with bilateral vestibular schwannoma (VS) alone aged ≥60 years had the lowest confirmation rate (6.6%) and reduced PPV (80%). Siblings as a first-degree relative, without an affected parent, had 0% PPV. All three individuals with unilateral VS and an affected sibling were proven not to have NF2. The biggest overlap was with LZTR1-associated schwannomatosis. In this category, seven individuals with unilateral VS plus ≥2 nondermal schwannomas reduced PPV to 67%. Conclusions The present study confirms important deficiencies in NF2 diagnostic criteria. The term “glioma” should be dropped and replaced by “ependymoma.” Similarly “neurofibroma” should be removed. Dropping “sibling” from first-degree relatives should be considered and testing of LZTR1 should be recommended for unilateral VS