Search

There is currently a lack of prospective studies comparing multiple treatment options for single-sided deafness (SSD) in terms of long-term sound localization outcomes. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aims to compare the objective and subjective sound localization abilities of SSD patients treated with a cochlear implant (CI), a bone conduction device (BCD), a contralateral routing of signals (CROS) hearing aid, or no treatment after two years of follow-up. About 120 eligible patients were randomized to cochlear implantation or to a trial period with first a BCD on a headband, then a CROS (or vice versa). After the trial periods, participants opted for a surgically implanted BCD, a CROS, or no treatment. Sound localization accuracy (in three configurations, calculated as percentage correct and root-mean squared error in degrees) and subjective spatial hearing (subscale of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of hearing (SSQ) questionnaire) were assessed at baseline and after 24 months of follow-up. At the start of follow-up, 28 participants were implanted with a CI, 25 with a BCD, 34 chose a CROS, and 26 opted for no treatment. Participants in the CI group showed better sound localization accuracy and subjective spatial hearing compared to participants in the BCD, CROS, and no-treatment groups at 24 months. Participants in the CI and CROS groups showed improved subjective spatial hearing at 24 months compared to baseline. To conclude, CI outperformed the BCD, CROS, and no-treatment groups in terms of sound localization accuracy and subjective spatial hearing in SSD patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION Netherlands Trial Register (https://onderzoekmetmensen.nl): NL4457, CINGLE trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Single-sided deafness (SSD) is often accompanied by tinnitus, resulting in a decreased quality of life. Currently, there is a lack of high level of evidence studies comparing different treatment options for SSD regarding tinnitus reduction. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated the effect of a cochlear implant (CI), bone conduction device (BCD), contralateral routing of sound (CROS), and no treatment on tinnitus outcomes in SSD patients, with follow-up extending to 24 months. Methods: A total of 120 adult SSD patients were randomized to three groups: CI, a trial period with first a BCD on a headband, then a CROS, or vice versa. After the trial periods, patients opted for a BCD, CROS, or no treatment. At the start of follow-up, 28 patients were implanted with a CI, 25 patients with a BCD, 34 patients had a CROS, and 26 patients chose no treatment. The Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), Tinnitus Questionnaire (TQ), the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) were completed at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months of follow-up. Results: The CI and BCD groups showed significantly decreased tinnitus impact scores. The CI group showed the largest decrease, which was already observed at 3 months of follow-up. Compared to the baseline, the median THI score decreased by 23 points, the TQ score by 17 points, and the VAS score by 60 points at 24 months. In the BCD group, the TQ score decreased by 9 points, and the VAS decreased by 25 points at 24 months. The HADS anxiety and depression subscale showed no indication for anxiety or depression at baseline, nor at 24 months, for all groups. Conclusion: In this RCT, SSD patients treated with a CI or BCD showed an overall decrease in tinnitus impact scores up to 24 months compared to baseline. The CI group reported a stable and the largest reduction. Cochlear implants appear to be superior to BCD and CROS, and no treatment for achieving partial or complete resolution of tinnitus in patients with SSD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Patients with single‐sided deafness (SSD) may experience difficulties with speech perception in noise, sound localization, have tinnitus and experience a reduced quality of life (QoL). contralateral routing of sound hearing aids (CROS) or bone conduction devices (BCD) may partly improve subjective speech communication and QoL in SSD patients. A trial period with these devices can help in making a well‐informed choice of treatment. Our aim was to evaluate factors influencing the choice of treatment made after a BCD and CROS trial period in adult SSD patients. Methods: Patients were randomized in the: "first BCD, then CROS" or "first CROS, then BCD" trial period group. After the BCD on headband and CROS were tested for 6 weeks each, patients choose for BCD, CROS or no treatment. Primary outcome was the distribution of choice of treatment. Secondary outcomes included the association between the choice of treatment and patient characteristics, reasons for treatment acceptance or rejection, device usage during the trial periods, and disease‐specific QoL outcomes. Results: Of 91 patients randomized, 84 completed both trial periods and made their choice of treatment: 25 (30%) BCD, 34 (40%) CROS, and 25 (30%) no treatment. No characteristics were found to be related to choice of treatment. Top three reasons for acceptance or rejection were: device (dis)comfort, sound quality and (dis)advantage of subjective hearing. Average daily device use during the trial periods was higher for CROS than for BCD. Choice of treatment was significantly related with both duration of device usage and greater improvement of QoL after the corresponding trial period. Conclusion: The majority of SSD patients preferred BCD or CROS over no treatment. Evaluating device usage, discussing treatment (dis)advantages and disease‐specific QoL outcomes after trial periods are to be considered during patient counseling and could facilitate whether to choose one of these treatments. Level of evidence: 1B. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Single-sided deafness (SSD) leads to difficulties with speech perception in noise, sound localisation, and sometimes tinnitus. Current treatments (Contralateral Routing of Sound hearing aids (CROS) and Bone Conduction Devices (BCD)) do not sufficiently overcome these problems. Cochlear implants (CIs) may help. Our aim was to evaluate these treatments in a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT). Adult SSD patients were randomised using a web-based randomisation tool into one of three groups: CI; trial period of 'first BCD, then CROS'; trial period of 'first CROS, then BCD'. After these trial periods, patients opted for BCD, CROS, or No treatment. The primary outcome was speech perception in noise (directed from the front (S0N0)). Secondary outcomes were speech perception in noise with speech directed to the poor ear and noise to the better ear (SpeNbe) and vice versa (SbeNpe), sound localisation, tinnitus burden, and disease-specific quality of life (QoL). We described results at baseline (unaided situation) and 3 and 6 months after device activation. 120 patients were randomised. Seven patients did not receive the allocated intervention. The number of patients per group after allocation was: CI (n = 28), BCD (n = 25), CROS (n = 34), and No treatment (n = 26). In S0N0, the CI group performed significantly better when compared to baseline, and when compared to the other groups. In SpeNbe, there was an advantage for all treatment groups compared to baseline. However, in SbeNpe, BCD and CROS groups performed worse compared to baseline, whereas the CI group improved. Only in the CI group sound localisation improved and tinnitus burden decreased. In general, all treatment groups improved on disease-specific QoL compared to baseline. This RCT demonstrates that cochlear implantation for SSD leads to improved speech perception in noise, sound localisation, tinnitus burden, and QoL after 3 and 6 months of follow-up. For most outcome measures, CI outperformed BCD and CROS. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register (www.trialregister.nl): NTR4580, CINGLE-trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Low skeletal muscle mass (SMM) or sarcopenia is emerging as an adverse prognostic factor for chemotherapy dose-limiting toxicity (CLDT) and survival in cancer patients. Our aim was to determine the impact of low SMM on CDLT in patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LA-HNSCC) treated with primary radiochemotherapy (RCT).Patients and Methods: Consecutive patients diagnosed with LA-HNSCC and treated with primary RCT between 2007 and 2011 in our center were included. Clinical variables were retrospectively retrieved and SMM was measured at the level of the third cervical vertebra using pre-treatment head and neck CT-scans. After determining a cut-off value for low SMM, multivariate analysis was performed to identify prognostic factors for CDLT.Results: Of 112 patients included, 30.4% experienced CDLT. The optimal cut-off value for low SMM as a predictor of CDLT was ≤43.2cm2/m2. Using this cut-off, 54.5% patients had low SMM. Patients with low SMM experienced CDLT more frequently than patients with normal SMM (44.3% vs. 13.7%, p<0.001) and received a higher dose of chemotherapy/kg lean body mass (estimated from SMM, p=0.044). At multivariate analysis, low SMM was independently inversely associated with CDLT (OR 0.93, 95%CI: 0.88-0.98). Patients experiencing CDLT had a lower overall survival than patients who did not (mean 36.6vs. 54.2months, p=0.038).Conclusion: Low SMM is an independent risk factor for CDLT in LA-HNSCC patients treated with primary RCT. Pre-therapeutic estimation of SMM using routine CT-scans of the head and neck region may identify patients at risk of CDLT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) may experience difficulties with speech perception in noise, sound localization, have tinnitus and experience a reduced quality of life (QoL). contralateral routing of sound hearing aids (CROS) or bone conduction devices (BCD) may partly improve subjective speech communication and QoL in SSD patients. A trial period with these devices can help in making a well-informed choice of treatment. Our aim was to evaluate factors influencing the choice of treatment made after a BCD and CROS trial period in adult SSD patients., Methods: Patients were randomized in the: "first BCD, then CROS" or "first CROS, then BCD" trial period group. After the BCD on headband and CROS were tested for 6 weeks each, patients choose for BCD, CROS or no treatment. Primary outcome was the distribution of choice of treatment. Secondary outcomes included the association between the choice of treatment and patient characteristics, reasons for treatment acceptance or rejection, device usage during the trial periods, and disease-specific QoL outcomes., Results: Of 91 patients randomized, 84 completed both trial periods and made their choice of treatment: 25 (30%) BCD, 34 (40%) CROS, and 25 (30%) no treatment. No characteristics were found to be related to choice of treatment. Top three reasons for acceptance or rejection were: device (dis)comfort, sound quality and (dis)advantage of subjective hearing. Average daily device use during the trial periods was higher for CROS than for BCD. Choice of treatment was significantly related with both duration of device usage and greater improvement of QoL after the corresponding trial period., Conclusion: The majority of SSD patients preferred BCD or CROS over no treatment. Evaluating device usage, discussing treatment (dis)advantages and disease-specific QoL outcomes after trial periods are to be considered during patient counseling and could facilitate whether to choose one of these treatments., Level of Evidence: 1B., Competing Interests: There are no competing interests for any of the authors. This study is partly funded by Cochlear Ltd. as an unrestricted research grant. By research contract, Cochlear Ltd. did not have influence on the study design, data collection, analysis, data interpretation, and publication., (© 2022 The Authors. Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Triological Society.)