Search

Objectives/Hypothesis: In children with mild to moderately severe unilateral hearing loss (UHL), assess whether subject‐reported quality of life (QOL) and teacher‐ and parent‐reported perception of listening difficulty are affected by use of a hearing aid (HA) with baseline accommodations, compared to children receiving only baseline accommodations. Study Design Randomized crossover clinical trial. Methods: Thirty‐seven children 6–12 years of age with mild to moderately severe UHL and ≥80% word recognition scores in the poorer hearing ear were randomized into arm 1, using baseline accommodations (frequency‐modulated system and strategic seating) for 12 weeks, followed by addition of a HA for 12 weeks. The other participants were randomized into the reverse methodology: arm 2, using a HA in addition to baseline accommodations for 12 weeks, followed by baseline accommodations alone. Surveys of QOL (Hearing Environments and Reflection on Quality of Life) and listening difficulties or challenges with hearing amplification (CHILD and LIFE‐R questionnaires) were administered at 6‐week intervals. Differences in mean survey scores, percent change, and improvement over time were computed between the two arms and inter‐arm intervals. Per‐protocol analysis was used. Results: Of the 37 children enrolled, 34 children underwent the study interventions and were included in the analysis, (arm 1 = 20, arm 2 = 14) (mean [standard deviation] age = 8 [1.5] years; 21 boys [61.8%]). Survey scores averaged across both arms during the HA interval (77.79 [15.13]) were significantly higher than during the baseline‐only interval (69.67 [14.69], P =.036). There was no significant difference between trial arms in mean scores between the two HA intervals (P =.450) and two baseline‐only intervals (P =.539). Conclusions: Hearing‐related QOL and listening ability improved in children who met eligibility criteria with mild to moderately severe UHL with HA use compared with baseline accommodations alone. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02269124. Level of Evidence: 1 Laryngoscope, 132:881–888, 2022 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess quality of life (QOL) in pediatric patients with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) with the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory 4.0 (PedsQL 4.0) and the Hearing Environments and Reflection on Quality of Life 26 (HEAR-QL-26) and HEAR-QL-28 surveys.Study Design: Prospective longitudinal study.Setting: Tertiary care center.Subjects and Methods: Surveys were administered to patients with SNHL (ages 2-18 years) from July 2016 to December 2018 at a multidisciplinary hearing loss clinic. Patients aged >7 years completed the HEAR-QL-26, HEAR-QL-28, and PedsQL 4.0 self-report tool, while parents completed the PedsQL 4.0 parent proxy report for children aged ≤7 years. Previously published data from children with normal hearing were used for controls. The independent t test was used for analysis.Results: In our cohort of 100 patients, the mean age was 7.7 years (SD, 4.5): 62 participants had bilateral SNHL; 63 had mild to moderate SNHL; and 37 had severe to profound SNHL. Sixty-eight patients used a hearing device. Mean (SD) total survey scores for the PedsQL 4.0 (ages 2-7 and 8-18 years), HEAR-QL-26 (ages 7-12 years), and HEAR-QL-28 (ages 13-18 years) were 83.9 (14.0), 79.2 (11.1), 81.2 (9.8), and 77.5 (11.3), respectively. Mean QOL scores for patients with SNHL were significantly lower than those for controls on the basis of previously published normative data (P < .0001). There was no significant difference in QOL between children with unilateral and bilateral SNHL or between children with SNHL who did and did not require a hearing device. Low statistical power due to small subgroup sizes limited our analysis.Conclusion: It is feasible to collect QOL data from children with SNHL in a hearing loss clinic. Children with SNHL had significantly lower scores on validated QOL instruments when compared with peers with normal hearing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the utility of peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) as a measure of nasal airflow and functional septorhinoplasty (FSRP) outcomes.Methods: Patients with nasal obstruction were administered Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) questionnaire and PNIF testing between January 2015 and 2018. Surgical patients repeated these tests at 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Patient demographics and operative techniques were recorded.Results: A total of 610 patients were evaluated for nasal obstruction with mean (standard deviation [SD]) NOSE score of 61.5 (23.2) and PNIF of 74.1 (35.4) liters per minute (L/min); correlation -0.16 (P < 0.001). Predictors of lower PNIF were female gender (β = -13.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.7 to 18.2, P < .001) and higher NOSE scores (β = -0.43, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.68, P < 0.001). A total of 281 patients underwent FSRP with statistically and clinically significant improvements in both mean NOSE and PNIF scores that were stable out to 2 years. NOSE scores changed -41.0 (25.5) points, and PNIF improved 20.7 (35.5) L/min at last follow-up. Grafting material did not affect outcomes, whereas spreader grafts improved PNIF values (β = 25.46, 95% CI 5.5 to 45.4, P = 0.013). Clinically significant changes between NOSE and PNIF were concordant, although the correlation was weak (r = -0.26, P = 0.02).Conclusion: Peak nasal inspiratory flow is a rapid, cheap, and easily performed test that detects nasal obstruction and clinically significant improvements in airflow following FSRP. Although PNIF does not correlate well enough with the patient experience of nasal obstruction to be used as a diagnostic tool, it does provide unique and complementary information useful for evaluating, understanding, and improving the effects of surgical techniques.Level Of Evidence: 2C Laryngoscope, 129:594-601, 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]