Search

Background/objectiveTo compare functional hearing and tinnitus outcomes in treated large (~ 3 cm) vestibular schwannoma (VS) and posterior fossa meningioma cohorts, and construct willingness-to-accept profiles for an experimental brain implant to treat unilateral hearing loss.MethodsA two-way MANOVA model with two independent variables (tumor type; time from treatment) and three dependent variables (hearing effort of tumor ear; abbreviated Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing scale (SSQ12); Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI)) was used to analyze data from VS (N = 32) and meningioma (N = 50) patients who were treated at a tertiary care center between 2010 and 2020. A query to probe acceptance of experimental treatment for hearing loss relative to expected benefit was used to construct willingness-to-accept profiles.ResultsTumor type was statistically significant on the combined dependent variables analysis (F[3, 76] = 19.172, p  2 years) (p ≤ .017). At the 60% speech understanding level, 77% of respondents would accept an experimental brain implant.ConclusionHearing outcome is better for posterior fossa meningioma compared to VS. Most patients with hearing loss in the tumor ear would consider a brain implant if the benefit level would be comparable to a cochlear implant.Level of evidence2.

ObjectivesThere are significant variations across centers on how to acquire and interpret imaging of children with congenital sensorineural hearing loss and cochleovestibular abnormalities. This study assesses the quality of imaging, sequences included, and accuracy of official radiology reports, to determine if these children are being assessed appropriately.MethodsThis study is retrospective review of CTs and MRIs from 40 pediatric patients diagnosed with profound sensorineural hearing loss and cochleovestibular structure/nerve abnormalities presenting to a tertiary referral academic center. Images were reviewed by two experienced neuroradiologists and a neurotologist. Findings were compared to official reports, when available.ResultsTwelve (30%) patients had an MRI only, while 28 (70%) had both an MRI and a CT. There were 3 (10.7%) CTs and 7 (17.5%) MRIs noted to be of poor quality. Children received an average of 6.8 (±2.7) CT acquisitions and 10.9 (±5.7) MRI acquisitions. There was non-concordance between the official report and expert review for 27 (71.1%) ears on CT and 27 (56.3%) ears on MRI.ConclusionsThese data demonstrate high variability in protocols and quality of medical imaging of children with sensorineural hearing loss. Interpretation of images is highly discordant between official reports and tertiary review. Given these results, we recommend that these children be imaged and evaluated at centers with neuroradiologists who are experienced in interpreting congenital abnormalities of the cochleovestibular system.

ImportanceOtosclerosis can be managed through surgical treatment, such as stapedectomy, or through hearing amplification with hearing aids. To our knowledge, there has been no cost-effectiveness analysis of these 2 treatment methods.ObjectiveTo determine the cost-effectiveness of stapedectomy vs hearing aid use for the treatment of otosclerosis.Design and settingIn this cost-effectiveness analysis, a decision tree was built to model the treatment choices for otosclerosis. The tree was run as a Markov model of a case patient aged 30 years. The model spanned the patient's lifetime to determine total costs of management of otosclerosis with stapedectomy or hearing aids. Cost-effectiveness was measured using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, with a willingness to pay of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) considered cost-effective. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed for all variables. A 2-way sensitivity analysis was performed for the cost of stapedectomy vs the cost of hearing aids. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the likelihood that stapedectomy would be cost-effective across a range of model inputs.InterventionsStapedectomy vs hearing aid use.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of stapedectomy vs hearing aids in the treatment of otosclerosis. The secondary objectives were to determine which factors are associated with the cost-effectiveness of the interventions.ResultsStapedectomy had an estimated lifetime cost of $19 417.95, while hearing aids had an average lifetime cost of $16 439.94. Stapedectomy also had a benefit of 16.58 QALYs, and hearing aids had a benefit of 15.82 QALYs. Stapedectomy increases lifetime costs by $2978.01, with a benefit of 0.76 QALYs compared with hearing aids. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for stapedectomy is $3918.43 per QALY. The model was sensitive to the cost of stapedectomy and the cost of stapedectomy revision surgery. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that stapedectomy was cost-effective compared with hearing aids 99.98% of the time.Conclusions and relevanceStapedectomy appears to be a cost-effective option for treating otosclerosis compared with hearing aid use, from the patient perspective.

Importance: Otosclerosis can be managed through surgical treatment, such as stapedectomy, or through hearing amplification with hearing aids. To our knowledge, there has been no cost-effectiveness analysis of these 2 treatment methods., Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of stapedectomy vs hearing aid use for the treatment of otosclerosis., Design and Setting: In this cost-effectiveness analysis, a decision tree was built to model the treatment choices for otosclerosis. The tree was run as a Markov model of a case patient aged 30 years. The model spanned the patient's lifetime to determine total costs of management of otosclerosis with stapedectomy or hearing aids. Cost-effectiveness was measured using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, with a willingness to pay of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) considered cost-effective. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed for all variables. A 2-way sensitivity analysis was performed for the cost of stapedectomy vs the cost of hearing aids. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the likelihood that stapedectomy would be cost-effective across a range of model inputs., Interventions: Stapedectomy vs hearing aid use., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of stapedectomy vs hearing aids in the treatment of otosclerosis. The secondary objectives were to determine which factors are associated with the cost-effectiveness of the interventions., Results: Stapedectomy had an estimated lifetime cost of $19 417.95, while hearing aids had an average lifetime cost of $16 439.94. Stapedectomy also had a benefit of 16.58 QALYs, and hearing aids had a benefit of 15.82 QALYs. Stapedectomy increases lifetime costs by $2978.01, with a benefit of 0.76 QALYs compared with hearing aids. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for stapedectomy is $3918.43 per QALY. The model was sensitive to the cost of stapedectomy and the cost of stapedectomy revision surgery. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that stapedectomy was cost-effective compared with hearing aids 99.98% of the time., Conclusions and Relevance: Stapedectomy appears to be a cost-effective option for treating otosclerosis compared with hearing aid use, from the patient perspective.