Search

Introduction: The treatment of patients with a cochlear implant (CI) is usually an elective, complex and interdisciplinary process. As an important source of information, patients often access the internet prior to treatment. The quality of internet-based information regarding thematic coverage has not yet been analysed in detail. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyse the information on CI care available on the internet regarding its thematic coverage and readability., Material Methods: Eight search phrases related to CI care were defined as part of the study. A checklist for completeness of thematic coverage was then created for each search phrase. The current German CI clinical practice guideline and the white paper on CI care in Germany were used as a basis. As a further parameter, readability was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease Scores. The search phrases were used for an internet search with Google. The first ten results were then analysed with regard to thematic coverage, readability and the provider of the website., Results: A total of 80 websites were identified, which were set up by 54 different providers (16 providers were found in multiple entries) from eight different provider groups. The average completeness of thematic coverage was 41.6 ± 28.2%. Readability according to the Flesch Reading Ease Score was categorised as "hard to read" on average (34.7 ± 14.2 points, range: 0-72). There was a negative statistically significant correlation between the thematic coverage of content and readability (Spearman's rank correlation: r = - 0.413, p = 0.00014). The completeness of thematic coverage of information on CI care available on the internet was highly heterogeneous and had a significant negative correlation with the readability. This result should be taken into account by both the providers of internet information and by patients when using internet-based information on CI care and help to further improve the quality of web-based information., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

For preoperative skin antisepsis, alcohol-containing iodine solutions and octenidine are suitable. For wound antisepsis, polyhexanide and hypochlorous acid (HOCL) are also available, but only PVP-iodine and HOCL can be applied to cartilage. Chlorhexidine should only be used as mouth- and bodywash for Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) decolonization. For the many other throat antiseptics, evidence of clinical efficacy is lacking. For decolonization of the nares, polyhexanide and octenidine are available as nasal gels, but these are inferior to mupirocin for MRSA decolonization. PVP-iodine and HOCL are safe to use for nasal irrigation, but only HOCL has proven effective to improve symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis. All antiseptics exhibit a certain ototoxicity. With an intact eardrum, acetic acid-containing eardrops can be used to prevent and treat external otitis and myringitis. When the eardrum is perforated, only alcohol-free PVP-iodine and HOCL may be used., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)