The effectiveness of hyperbaric oxygen in patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of hyperbaric oxygen in the treatment of patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSHL). DATA SOURCES: An Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane search were utilised to identify various clinical trials on the treatment of ISSHL. Studies that were published between 2002 and 2018 and written in the English, Dutch or German language were included. Search terms included synonyms for idiopathic sudden hearing loss. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 16 articles were identified regarding hyperbaric oxygen therapy. All patients were evaluated with pure-tone audiometry. A major part of the cases presented with unilateral hearing loss(bilateral hearing loss less than 5%). In several studies, the average of the mean hearing gain at five contiguous frequencies was significantly higher in the hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy and systemic steroid (SS) group in patients with severe or profound hearing impairment. They recorded a significant treatment effect (p = 0.005) of HBO + SS therapy on patients with an initial hearing loss of ≥ 81 dB. CONCLUSIONS: On the whole group of ISSHL patients, no significant difference was demonstrated between the intervention and control group. However, in severe or profound hearing-impaired ISSHL patients, significant benefit was observed in the intervention group. These results likely indicate that adding HBO to steroid therapies might be of benefit in cases of severe and profound hearing impairment

Protocol for a validation study of the translated stapesplasty outcome test 25 for measurement of disease-specific quality of life in Dutch patients with otosclerosis

Introduction Otosclerosis is a common cause of acquired conductive hearing loss and can be treated using hearing aids or surgically. Surgical success rates or surgical results are usually reported using pure-tone audiometric thresholds and/or speech discrimination scores. Audiometric results and patient-reported quality of life after stapes surgery do not seem to correlate well. It is therefore our opinion that health-related quality of life measurements should be implemented as an additional outcome measure after stapes surgery. So far, there is a lack of a valid, reliable and clinically feasible measuring tool for determining health-related quality of life in Dutch patients with otosclerosis who undergo stapes surgery. Methods and analysis A prospective validation study was designed to translate and validate the disease-specific Stapesplasty Outcome Test 25 (SPOT-25) in a population of Dutch patients with otosclerosis who undergo primary stapes surgery. A total of 125 patients with otosclerosis who will be undergoing primary stapes surgery and 50 healthy controls will be included. The patients with otosclerosis will fulfil several questionnaires preoperatively, 6 to 8 weeks postoperatively and 8 to 10 weeks postoperatively with a 2-week interval between the postoperative administrations. The patients' audiometric results, which are measured routinely before and after undergoing primary stapes surgery, will also be used. The healthy controls will fulfil the translated SPOT-25 once. First, the original SPOT-25 will be translated from German to Dutch in a six-step process. Second, the translated SPOT-25 will be pilot-tested in a subset of patients. Lastly, validity, reliability and responsiveness of the translated SPOT-25 will be analysed. Ethics and dissemination The research protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University Medical Center Utrecht (protocol 18-768/C; V.1, November 2018). Initially, we planned to include 50 patients. At a later stage we decided to increase the sample size to 100 patients. We notified the Institutional Review Board of this change to the protocol. The trial results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed medical journals and presented at scientific conferences. Trial registration number NL7586

Feasibility of preservation of chorda tympani nerve during noninflammatory ear surgery: A systematic review

Objective: The objective of our systematic review is to investigate the postoperative gustatory function of the chorda tympani nerve following noninflammatory ear surgery for which the chorda tympani is at risk for iatrogenic injury (stretching, handling, or sacrificing). Data Sources: PubMed and EMBASE. Review Methods: A PubMed and EMBASE databases search was conducted on November 15, 2016. Study inclusion criteria included: 1) ear surgery performed for noninflammatory ear diseases, and 2) gustatory function of the chorda tympani reported as an outcome. The quality of eligible studies was assessed using the risk of bias assessment tool for nonrandomized studies. Study characteristics and outcome data of the included studies were extracted. Results: In total 1,094 articles were retrieved. Fourteen studies encompassing 1,062 operated ears were included after quality assessment. Stapedectomy was the most frequent surgical procedure performed in 398 ears. The follow-up time varied between 6 weeks and 99 months. Patients with a preserved chorda tympani were less symptomatic (24% was symptomatic) compared to patients with a stretched (53% was symptomatic) or sacrificed chorda tympani (47% was symptomatic). The recovery rate varied from 61% to 79%. The results of the electrogustometry and strip test showed a discrepancy with the subjective complaints of the patients. Conclusion: Patients with a stretched chorda tympani were slightly more symptomatic compared to patients with a sacrificed chorda tympani. Therefore, in cases for which the chorda tympani greatly hinders a proper view of the surgical field, sacrificing the nerve could be considered to maximize surgical performance and have a satisfactory postoperative result

Quality of life, hearing results, patient satisfaction and postoperative complications of day-case versus inpatient unilateral cochlear implantation in adults:a randomized controlled, equivalence trial

Objective: To investigate the hypothesis that day-case cochlear implantation is associated with equal quality of life, hearing benefits and complications rates, compared to inpatient cochlear implantation. Study design: A single-center, non-blinded, randomized controlled, equivalence trial in a tertiary referral center. Methods: Thirty adult patients with post-lingual bilateral sensorineural hearing loss eligible for unilateral cochlear implantation surgery were randomly assigned to either the day-case or inpatient treatment group. The effect on general quality of life, patient satisfaction, (subjective) hearing improvement, postoperative complications and causes of crossover and/or readmission were assessed using questionnaires, auditory evaluations and patients’ charts over a follow-up period of 1 year. Results: Overall quality of life measured by the HUI3 was equal between the day-case (n = 14) and inpatient group (n = 14). The overall patients’ satisfaction showed a slight favor towards an inpatient approach. There was no significant difference in the subjective and objective hearing improvement between both treatment groups. During the 1-year follow-up period no major complications occurred. Minor complications occurred intraoperatively in three day-case patients resulting in three out of nine admissions of day-case patients. Other causes of admission of day-case patients were nausea and vomiting (n = 1), drowsiness (n = 1), late scheduled surgery (n = 2), social reasons (n = 1), or due to an unclear reason (n = 1). No patients required readmission. Conclusion: We found equal outcomes of QoL, patient satisfaction, objective, and subjective hearing outcomes between day-case and inpatient unilateral cochlear implantation. Nine out of 14 day-case patients were admitted for at least one night postoperatively (crossover). No major complications occurred in both groups. A day-case approach seems feasible when using specific patient selection, surgical planning and the preoperative provision of patient information into account. Besides this, the familiarity with a day-case approach of both patient and the surgical team can increase the feasibility of day-case surgery. Level of evidence: 1.</p

Quality of life, hearing results, patient satisfaction and postoperative complications of day-case versus inpatient unilateral cochlear implantation in adults:a randomized controlled, equivalence trial

Objective: To investigate the hypothesis that day-case cochlear implantation is associated with equal quality of life, hearing benefits and complications rates, compared to inpatient cochlear implantation. Study design: A single-center, non-blinded, randomized controlled, equivalence trial in a tertiary referral center. Methods: Thirty adult patients with post-lingual bilateral sensorineural hearing loss eligible for unilateral cochlear implantation surgery were randomly assigned to either the day-case or inpatient treatment group. The effect on general quality of life, patient satisfaction, (subjective) hearing improvement, postoperative complications and causes of crossover and/or readmission were assessed using questionnaires, auditory evaluations and patients’ charts over a follow-up period of 1 year. Results: Overall quality of life measured by the HUI3 was equal between the day-case (n = 14) and inpatient group (n = 14). The overall patients’ satisfaction showed a slight favor towards an inpatient approach. There was no significant difference in the subjective and objective hearing improvement between both treatment groups. During the 1-year follow-up period no major complications occurred. Minor complications occurred intraoperatively in three day-case patients resulting in three out of nine admissions of day-case patients. Other causes of admission of day-case patients were nausea and vomiting (n = 1), drowsiness (n = 1), late scheduled surgery (n = 2), social reasons (n = 1), or due to an unclear reason (n = 1). No patients required readmission. Conclusion: We found equal outcomes of QoL, patient satisfaction, objective, and subjective hearing outcomes between day-case and inpatient unilateral cochlear implantation. Nine out of 14 day-case patients were admitted for at least one night postoperatively (crossover). No major complications occurred in both groups. A day-case approach seems feasible when using specific patient selection, surgical planning and the preoperative provision of patient information into account. Besides this, the familiarity with a day-case approach of both patient and the surgical team can increase the feasibility of day-case surgery. Level of evidence: 1.</p

Quality of life, hearing results, patient satisfaction and postoperative complications of day-case versus inpatient unilateral cochlear implantation in adults : a randomized controlled, equivalence trial

Abstract: ObjectiveTo investigate the hypothesis that day-case cochlear implantation is associated with equal quality of life, hearing benefits and complications rates, compared to inpatient cochlear implantation.Study designA single-center, non-blinded, randomized controlled, equivalence trial in a tertiary referral center.MethodsThirty adult patients with post-lingual bilateral sensorineural hearing loss eligible for unilateral cochlear implantation surgery were randomly assigned to either the day-case or inpatient treatment group. The effect on general quality of life, patient satisfaction, (subjective) hearing improvement, postoperative complications and causes of crossover and/or readmission were assessed using questionnaires, auditory evaluations and patients' charts over a follow-up period of 1 year.ResultsOverall quality of life measured by the HUI3 was equal between the day-case (n = 14) and inpatient group (n = 14). The overall patients' satisfaction showed a slight favor towards an inpatient approach. There was no significant difference in the subjective and objective hearing improvement between both treatment groups. During the 1-year follow-up period no major complications occurred. Minor complications occurred intraoperatively in three day-case patients resulting in three out of nine admissions of day-case patients. Other causes of admission of day-case patients were nausea and vomiting (n = 1), drowsiness (n = 1), late scheduled surgery (n = 2), social reasons (n = 1), or due to an unclear reason (n = 1). No patients required readmission.ConclusionWe found equal outcomes of QoL, patient satisfaction, objective, and subjective hearing outcomes between day-case and inpatient unilateral cochlear implantation. Nine out of 14 day-case patients were admitted for at least one night postoperatively (crossover). No major complications occurred in both groups. A day-case approach seems feasible when using specific patient selection, surgical planning and the preoperative provision of patient information into account. Besides this, the familiarity with a day-case approach of both patient and the surgical team can increase the feasibility of day-case surgery.Level of evidence1