[Effects of cochlear implantation on tinnitus in patients with single-sided deafness and asymmetrical hearing loss].

Objective:To evaluate the effects of cochlear implantation in patients with single-sided deafness（SSD） and asymmetrical hearing loss（AHL）. Methods:Seventeen Mandarin-speaking CI patients diagnosed as SSD/AHL were recruited in our study. The Tinnitus Handicap Inventory（THI） and the Visual Analogue Scale（VAS） were used to assess changes in tinnitus distress and tinnitus loudness in SSD patients at each time point（pre-operation and post-operation）. Results:The THI score and all 3 dimensions were significant decreased with CI-on than pre-operation（P<0.05）. Tinnitus VAS scores were also decreased, and VAS scores were lower with CI-on than with CI-off, and were both significantly different at each time point after CI switch-on（P<0.05）. Conclusion:CI could help SSD/AHL patients to suppress tinnitus and reduce the loudness of tinnitus. However, CI should not be a treatment of tinnitus.

The impact of cochlear implantation on quality of life and psychological status in single-sided deafness or asymmetric hearing loss with tinnitus and influencing factors of implantation intention: a preliminary study.

PURPOSE: The current study aims to explore the therapeutic effect of cochlear implants (CIs) on tinnitus in patients with single-sided deafness or asymmetric hearing loss (SSD/AHL) as well as the improvement of tinnitus-related quality of life and psychological status. In addition, we also explored whether the levels of quality of life and psychological status was related to the patient's implantation intention. METHODS: Seven patients decided to receive cochlear implantation. Before and after implantation, they completed the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Tinnitus Questionnaire (TQ) to assess tinnitus severity, the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ), and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire (SF-36) to assess the quality of life, the Simplified Coping Style Questionnaire (SCSQ) to assess psychological status. The other 8 SSD patients refused cochlear implantation. Their scores of the above questionnaires were compared with those of patients received implantation. RESULTS: Six months after cochlear implantations, the tinnitus perception, loudness, and annoyance significantly decreased compared to that before implantation. In terms of quality of life and physiological status, no statistically significant changes were detected in SSQ, SF-36, and SCSQ measurements. The score of annoyance subcategory of VAS and all subcategories of SSQ of patients refused implantation were better than those of implanted patients before implantation. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that CIs can significantly reduce tinnitus severity. Patients refused implantation had better status in the annoyance of VAS and all subcategories of SSQ scores than those received implantation.

Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo and asymmetric hearing loss: is the worst hearing ear likely to suffer from otoconial displacement?

PURPOSE: Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) may be found in patients complaining of hearing disorders. The aim of our investigation was to describe audiological findings in BPPV patients, focusing on subjects with asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), to better understand whether otoconial displacement may occur preferentially in the worst hearing ear. METHODS: A prospective study was performed on 112 BPPV patients. We divided the sample into subjects who suffered from AHL (G1) and patients with did not (G2). Data regarding vestibular symptoms, tinnitus, migraine, antivertigo drug therapy, and vascular risk factors were collected. RESULTS: Out of 30 AHL subjects, 83.33% of them were affected by sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) in at least one ear, with a significant difference in the distribution of hearing loss type between groups (p = 0.0006). In 70% of cases, the ear affected by BPPV was the one with the worst hearing threshold (p = 0.02); threshold asymmetry predicted BPPV in the worst hearing ear (p = 0.03). The predictability depended neither on the hearing threshold gap between ears nor the severity of the hearing threshold in the worst ear (p > 0.05). No differences in vascular risk factors between groups were observed (p > 0.05). We evidenced a moderate correlation between age and hearing threshold (ρ = 0.43). Age did not result a predictive factor for residual dizziness or BPPV in the worst ear (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports the likelihood of an otoconial displacement in the worse hearing ear in BPPV patients. Clinicians should start testing the worst hearing ear when managing AHL patients with suspected BPPV.

Auditory capacity of the better-hearing ear in asymmetric hearing loss.

PURPOSE: Our aim was to investigate the course of the hearing capacity of the better-hearing ear in single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) over time, in a multicenter study. METHODS: We included 2086 pure-tone audiograms from 323 patients with SSD and AHL from four hospitals and 156 private practice otorhinolaryngologists. We collected: age, gender, etiology, duration of deafness, treatment with CI, number and monosyllabic speech recognition, numerical rating scale (NRS) of tinnitus intensity, and the tinnitus questionnaire according to Goebel and Hiller. We compared the pure tone audiogram of the better-hearing ear in patients with SSD with age- and gender-controlled hearing thresholds from ISO 7029:2017. RESULTS: First, individuals with SSD showed a significantly higher hearing threshold from 0.125 to 8 kHz in the better-hearing ear compared to the ISO 7029:2017. The duration of deafness of the poorer-hearing ear showed no relationship with the hearing threshold of the better-hearing ear. The hearing threshold was significantly higher in typically bilaterally presenting etiologies (chronic otitis media, otosclerosis, and congenital hearing loss), except for Menière's disease. Second, subjects that developed AHL did so in 5.19 ± 5.91 years and showed significant reduction in monosyllabic word and number recognition. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with SSD show significantly poorer hearing in the better-hearing ear than individuals with NH from the ISO 7029:2017. In clinical practice, we should, therefore, inform our SSD patients that their disease is accompanied by a reduced hearing capacity on the contralateral side, especially in certain etiologies.

Benefits of unilateral cochlear implantation in adults with asymmetric hearing loss: Audiologic and patient-related outcome measures.

PURPOSE: To investigate the benefits of cochlear implantation in adults with single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective within-subjects repeated-measures. SETTING: Two tertiary cochlear implant centers. PATIENTS: Fourteen adults with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss in the worse hearing ear and up to moderate SNHL in the better hearing ear. INTERVENTION: Cochlear implantation in the worse hearing ear. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) test, AzBio sentence test in noise, and lateralization testing were conducted preoperatively and at 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-activation. Patient-related outcomes were measured using the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale and Glasgow Benefit Inventory. Tinnitus Handicap Inventory was administered to subjects with tinnitus. RESULTS: Mean length of hearing loss in the worse hearing ear was 3.5 years. The mean CNC change scores from baseline were 54.8, 55.9, and 58.9 percentage points at 3-, 6-, and 12-months (p < 0.001). AzBio sentence test in noise demonstrated improved scores in all spatial configurations, although statistically significant in S0N0 (speech front, noise front) only. Lateralization testing showed significant improvement of 22.9, 24.5, and 24.0 percentage points at 3-, 6-, and 12 months post-activation (p = 0.002). All patient-related outcome measures revealed significant improvement. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates improved speech perception in noise, sound lateralization, quality of life, and reduction in tinnitus perception in adults with SSD/AHL who undergo cochlear implantation. Our results add to the growing body of evidence that cochlear implant should be offered to this population.

[Intervention effects of bone conduction hearing aids in patients with single-sided deafness and asymmetric hearing loss].

The incidence of single-sided deafness（SSD） is increasing year by year. Due to the hearing defects of one ear, the ability of sound localization, speech recognition in noise, and quality of life of patients with single-sided deafness will be affected to varying degrees. This article reviews the intervention effects of different types of bone conduction hearing aids in patients with single-sided deafness and asymmetric hearing loss, and the differences of intervention effects between bone conduction hearing aids, contralateral routing of signal（CROS） aids, and cochlea implant（CI）, to provide a reference for the auditory intervention and clinical treatment of single-sided deafness and asymmetric hearing loss.

Postoperative optimization of cochlear implantation for single sided deafness and asymmetric hearing loss: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Identify and evaluate the effectiveness of methods for improving postoperative cochlear implant (CI) hearing performance in subjects with single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL). DATA SOURCES: Embase, PubMed, Scopus. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic review and narrative synthesis. English language studies of adult CI recipients with SSD and AHL reporting a postoperative intervention and comparative audiometric data pertaining to speech in noise, speech in quiet and sound localization were included. RESULTS: 32 studies met criteria for full text review and 6 (n = 81) met final inclusion criteria. Interventions were categorized as: formal auditory training, programming techniques, or hardware optimization. Formal auditory training (n = 10) found no objective improvement in hearing outcomes. Experimental CI maps did not improve audiologic outcomes (n = 9). Programed CI signal delays to improve synchronization demonstrated improved sound localization (n = 12). Hardware optimization, including multidirectional (n = 29) and remote (n = 11) microphones, improved sound localization and speech in noise, respectively. CONCLUSION: Few studies meeting inclusion criteria and small sample sizes highlight the need for further study. Formal auditory training did not appear to improve hearing outcomes. Programming techniques, such as CI signal delay, and hardware optimization, such as multidirectional and remote microphones, show promise to improve outcomes for SSD and AHL CI users.

Amplification of the poorer ear by StereoBiCROS in case of asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss: effect on tinnitus.

Tinnitus is prevalent among patients suffering from Single-Sided Deafness (SSD) and Asymmetrical Hearing Loss (AHL). In addition to bothersome tinnitus in the poorer ear, these patients also report issues with understanding speech in noise and sound localization. The conventional treatment options offered to these patients to improve auditory abilities are cochlear implantation, bone conduction devices or Contralateral Routing Of Signal (CROS) hearing aids. It was recently found that the benefit of cochlear implantation for tinnitus associated with AHL/SSD was greater than the other two approaches. It is conceivable that the lack of stimulation provided to the poorer ear in these last approaches explains their modest impact on tinnitus perception. A new technology that combines the ability to reroute the sound from the poorer ear to the good ear (CROS system) while still stimulating the poorer ear with conventional sound amplification has recently been developed: the StereoBiCROS system. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of this new device on tinnitus. Twelve AHL and two SSD patients aged 70.7 ± 7.9 years with tinnitus were fitted with bilateral hearing aids that included 3 programs: Stereophonic, BiCROS and StereoBiCROS (CROS + bilateral amplification). The short-and long-term effect of the approach on tinnitus was assessed using a tinnitus Loudness Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), respectively. Both the VAS and the THI were used before and one month after the hearing aid fitting. Of the 14 patients who used their hearing aids daily (12.6 ± 1.6 h per day) the StereoBiCROS program was the most used program (81.8 ± 20.5% of the time). The average THI total score decreased from 47 (± 22) to 15 (± 16) (p = 0.002) and the VAS-Loudness score decreased from 7 (± 1) to 2 (± 2) (p < 0.001) after the one-month trial period. In conclusion, StereoBiCROS stimulation strategy seems to offer an effective alternative to reduce tinnitus handicap and loudness for patients with AHL/SSD and tinnitus. This effect may be driven by sound amplification of the poorer ear.

Translabyrinthine Approach for Sporadic Vestibular Schwannoma: Patient Selection, Technical Pearls, and Patient Outcomes.

Herein we briefly describe the translabyrinthine approach to vestibular schwannoma resection as well as a focused literature review as to the best candidates, technical recommendations, and key outcomes with respect to other approaches.

Intervention effects of bone conduction hearing aids in patients with single-sided deafness and asymmetric hearing loss / 临床耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志

The incidence of single-sided deafness（SSD） is increasing year by year. Due to the hearing defects of one ear, the ability of sound localization, speech recognition in noise, and quality of life of patients with single-sided deafness will be affected to varying degrees. This article reviews the intervention effects of different types of bone conduction hearing aids in patients with single-sided deafness and asymmetric hearing loss, and the differences of intervention effects between bone conduction hearing aids, contralateral routing of signal（CROS） aids, and cochlea implant（CI）, to provide a reference for the auditory intervention and clinical treatment of single-sided deafness and asymmetric hearing loss.

Cochlear Implant Evolving Indications: Our Outcomes in Adult Patients.

Background: The eligibility criteria for cochlear implantation are constantly evolving, following the continuous progress in technology, knowledge about cochlear implant (CI) fitting, and the possibility to preserve residual hearing. Appropriate attention should be given to asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) and single-side deafness (SSD) subjects. This study aimed to analyze cochlear implant indications and evaluate the longitudinal performance outcomes for patients with different kinds and degrees of sensorineural hearing loss. Methods: A total of 69 adult hearing loss CI recipients were included and divided into four subgroups according to our CI indication criteria. We performed objective and subjective measures, including speech perception analysis in silence and with background noise, comparing the outcomes obtained in the four groups. Results: After cochlear implant surgery, concerning the preimplantation daily listening condition, a significantly improved speech perception score in silence and noise was found in all four groups (p < 0.05 for all). Conclusion: CI could represent an efficient solution for patients with AHL and SSD classes.

In an era of bilateral funding and changing criteria, when is unilateral cochlear implantation a better option?

BACKGROUND: Funding for paediatric bilateral cochlear implantation became available in Ireland in 2014. Prior to this, children eligible for cochlear implantation received a unilateral implant. OBJECTIVE: To examine the cohort of children who received a unilateral cochlear implant in the 4 year period following bilateral cochlear implantation funding becoming available. METHODS: A clinical audit of all children implanted for the first time between July 2014 and July 2018. The unilaterally implanted children (n = 105) were divided into 3 groups according to whether they met the audiometric thresholds for implantation in neither ear (Group 1), one ear (Group 2) or both ears (Group 3). One year post operative functional outcomes were examined for all 3 groups. RESULTS: All 3 groups showed significant improvements in functional outcomes at 1 year post op. To date, 20% of the unilaterally implanted children have proceeded to get a sequential CI, often where there was no change in audiological status. CONCLUSIONS: The number of children in Groups 1 and 2 highlighted how our decision making around cochlear implantation has changed in recent years. Unilateral cochlear implantation in certain circumstances is good practice, independent of the audiological profile when an experienced multi-disciplinary team (MDT) is involved in the decision making process. Decision making using a holistic model approach is key, including involving the parent/carer and, where appropriate, the child/teenager themselves. A staged bilateral cochlear implant is also a good option, where careful monitoring and support for the first implant has resulted in positive outcomes.

Multiple Audiometric Analysis in the Screening of Vestibular Schwannoma.

Introduction Asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss is the main early symptom of retrocochlear lesions, hence its importance in screening for vestibular schwannomas. Currently, there is no consensus regarding its definition. The objective was to identify the audiometric pattern that would serve as a predictor for vestibular schwannoma in patients with asymmetric hearing loss. Materials and methods A cross-sectional study was conducted that included patients with asymmetric hearing loss attending a secondary care center and a tertiary care center. Clinical, audiometric and imaging (MRI with gadolinium) variables were collected. Asymmetric hearing loss was defined as a difference of 15 dB in one or more frequencies between both ears. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy of different audiometric patterns were analyzed. Results A total of 107 patients were studied and divided into two groups: group 1 without vestibular schwannoma (n=98); and group 2 with vestibular schwannoma (n=9). No significant difference in demographic characteristics or audiometric patterns was found in patients with and without vestibular schwannoma. The audiometric pattern with the best sensitivity as a screening test was a difference >20 dB in the 4,000 Hz frequency, with a sensitivity of 77.78%, specificity of 30.61%, PPV of 8.33%, NPV of 93.75% and accuracy of 34.50%. Conclusion The audiometric pattern with the best results was a difference >20 dB in the 4,000 Hz frequency range; however, patients with asymmetric hearing loss could not be differentiated from patients with retrocochlear lesions based only on audiometry. Asymmetrical hearing loss must be studied with MRI.

Effects of auditory rehabilitation with cochlear implant on tinnitus prevalence and distress, health-related quality of life, subjective hearing and psychological comorbidities: Comparative analysis of patients with asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), double-sided (bilateral) deafness (DSD), and single-sided (unilateral) deafness (SSD).

Introduction: Auditory rehabilitation with a cochlear implant (CI), in many cases, positively impacts tinnitus. However, it is unclear if the tinnitus-related benefit of CI is equal for patients with various indications for CI. Therefore, this study aimed to determine differences in tinnitus prevalence and distress, health-related quality of life, subjective hearing, perceived stress, and psychological comorbidities between patients diagnosed with asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), single-sided (unilateral) deafness (SSD), and double-sided (bilateral) deafness (DSD) before and six months after cochlear implantation. Methods: One hundred-one CI candidates were included in this prospective study (39 AHL patients, 23 DSD patients, and 39 SSD patients). The patients completed questionnaires measuring tinnitus distress, health-related quality of life, subjective hearing, perceived stress, and psychological comorbidities before and 6 months after CI. Results: The prevalence of tinnitus in the entire cohort (80.2% before CI) decreased 6 months after CI to 71.3%. The DSD group had the lowest tinnitus prevalence at both time points. The degree of tinnitus-induced distress decreased significantly in all three groups after CI. Differences in quality of life, subjective hearing, and psychological comorbidities between the groups at the study onset disappeared after CI. Significant correlations existed between anxiety, depression, and tinnitus distress in AHL and SSD but not in DSD patients before and after CI. Discussion: Our results demonstrate significant differences between the three groups of CI candidates, which might affect the implantation outcome. These differences suggest a need for personalized psychological counseling during the auditory rehabilitation process, focusing on anxiety and depressive symptoms for SSD and AHL patients.

Hipoacusia sensorineural asimétrica en el diagnóstico de schwannoma vestibular / Asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss in the diagnosis of vestibular schwannoma

Introducción: se ha descrito que los pacientes con hipoacusia asimétrica cursan en un 2% con lesiones retrococleares. La conducta de escrutinio se ha basado en la audiometría. Existen varias definiciones de asimetría audiométrica descritas en la literatura, pero sin llegar a un consenso. Aunque la prueba de oro para el diagnóstico de schwannoma vestibular es la resonancia magnética con gadolíneo, la sospecha clínica se hace en base a la asimetría audiométrica. Objetivo: hacemos una revisión de los trabajos publicados al respecto en la literatu-ra y comentamos nuestra experiencia. Reflexión: queremos enfatizar en la importancia de estudiar a los pacientes con hipoacusia asimétrica con el fin de descartar patología retrococlear. Conclusión: a pesar de que no existe un consenso claro en la definición de hi-poacusia asimétrica, la sospecha clínica de un schwannoma vestibular se basa en la audiometría

Background: It is described that 2% of patients with asymmetric hearing loss have retrocochlear lesions. The scrutiny behavior has been based on audiometry. There are several definitions of audiometric asymmetry described in the literature, but without reaching a consensus. Although the gold standard for the diagnosis of vestibular schwannoma is gadolinium magnetic resonance imaging, the clinical sus-picion is based on audiometric asymmetry. Objective: we review the results published in this regard in the literature and com-ment on our own experience. Reflection: we want to emphasize the importance of studying asymmetric hearing loss patients in order to rule out retrocochlear etiology. Conclusions: although there is no clear consensus on the definition of asym-metric hearing loss, the clinical suspicion of a vestibular schwannoma is based on the audiometry.

On the Effect of Bimodal Rehabilitation in Asymmetric Hearing Loss.

BACKGROUND: Bone conductive implants (BCI) have been reported to provide greater beneficial effects for the auditory and perceptual functions of the contralateral ear in patients presenting with asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) compared to those with single-sided deafness (SSD). The aim of the study was to assess the effects of wearing a conventional hearing aid in the contralateral ear on BCI in terms of an improved overall auditory performance. METHODS: eleven AHL subjects wearing a BCI in their worse hearing ear underwent an auditory evaluation by pure tone and speech audiometry in free field. This study group was obtained by adding to the AHL patients those SSD subjects that, during the follow-up, showed deterioration of the hearing threshold of the contralateral ear, thus presenting with the features of AHL. Four different conditions were tested and compared: unaided, with BCI only, with contralateral hearing aid (CHA) only and with BCI combined with CHA. RESULTS: all of the prosthetic conditions caused a significant improvement with respect to the unaided condition. When a CHA was adopted, its combination with the BCI showed significantly better auditory performances than those achieved with the BCI only. CONCLUSIONS: the present study suggests the beneficial role of a CHA in BCI-implanted AHL subjects in terms of overall auditory performance.

Cochlear Implantation and Other Treatments in Single-Sided Deafness and Asymmetric Hearing Loss: Results of a National Multicenter Study Including a Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Cochlear implantation is a recent approach proposed to treat single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL). Several cohort studies showed its effectiveness on tinnitus and variable results on binaural hearing. The main objective of this study is to assess the outcomes of cochlear implantation and other treatment options in SSD/AHL on quality of life. METHODS: This prospective multicenter study was conducted in 7 tertiary university hospitals and included an observational cohort study of SSD/AHL adult patients treated using contralateral routing of the signal (CROS) hearing aids or bone-anchored hearing systems (BAHSs) or who declined all treatments, and a randomized controlled trial in subjects treated by cochlear implantation, after failure of CROS and BAHS trials. In total, 155 subjects with SSD or AHL, with or without associated tinnitus, were enrolled. After 2 consecutive trials with CROS hearing aids and BAHSs on headband, all subjects chose any of the 4 treatment options (abstention, CROS, BAHS, or cochlear implant [CI]). The subjects who opted for a CI were randomized between 2 arms (CI vs. initial observation). Six months after the treatment choice, quality of life was assessed using both generic (EuroQoL-5D, EQ-5D) and auditory-specific quality-of-life indices (Nijmegen Cochlear implant Questionnaire [NCIQ] and Visual Analogue Scale [VAS] for tinnitus severity). Performances for speech-in-noise recognition and localization were measured as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: CROS was chosen by 75 subjects, while 51 opted for cochlear implantation, 18 for BAHSs, and 11 for abstention. Six months after treatment, both EQ-5D VAS and auditory-specific quality-of-life indices were significantly better in the "CI" arm versus "observation" arm. The mean effect of the CI was particularly significant in subjects with associated severe tinnitus (mean improvement of 20.7 points ± 19.7 on EQ-5D VAS, 20.4 ± 12.4 on NCIQ, and 51.4 ± 35.4 on tinnitus). No significant effect of the CI was found on binaural hearing results. Before/after comparisons showed that the CROS and BAHS also improved significantly NCIQ scores (for CROS: +7.7, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = [4.5; 10.8]; for the BAHS: +14.3, 95% CI = [7.9; 20.7]). CONCLUSION: Cochlear implantation leads to significant improvements in quality of life in SSD and AHL patients, particularly in subjects with associated severe tinnitus, who are thereby the best candidates to an extension of CI indications.

Auditory experience, for a certain duration, is a prerequisite for tinnitus: lessons from subjects with unilateral tinnitus in the better-hearing ear.

Tinnitus has traditionally been considered an otologic disorder; however, recent advances in auditory neuroscience have shifted investigations toward the brain. The Bayesian brain model explains tinnitus as an auditory phantom percept. According to the model, the brain works to reduce environmental uncertainty, and thus the absence of auditory information due to hearing loss may cause auditory phantom percepts, i.e., tinnitus. As in animal studies, our recent human observational study revealed the absence of ipsilesional tinnitus in subjects with congenital single-sided deafness, suggesting that auditory experience is a prerequisite for the generation of tinnitus. Prompted by anecdotal cases, we hypothesized that subjects with acquired hearing loss would not develop tinnitus if their duration of auditory experience was not sufficiently long. We retrospectively enrolled 22 subjects with acquired asymmetric hearing loss and unilateral tinnitus in better ear (TBE). Twenty-two hearing threshold-matched controls with tinnitus in worse ear (TWE) were selected from our database of tinnitus patients. All 22 TBE subjects reported that their acquired hearing loss developed before the age of 20, and the reported duration of auditory deprivation in the ear without tinnitus in the TBE group was significantly longer than that of the TWE group. In other words, the TBE group with limited auditory experience in the worse ear did not develop tinnitus in the worse ear while subjects with enough auditory experiences in the worse ear developed ipsilesional tinnitus in the TWE group. These preliminary results support our hypothesis that both auditory experience itself, and an individually variable critical duration of auditory deprivation, are prerequisites for the generation of tinnitus.

Outcome of cochlear implantation in the worse ear of post-lingual asymmetric hearing loss: elucidation of prognostic markers.

BACKGROUND: Specific correlations between the outcomes of cochlear implantation (CI) and hearing thresholds of the both ears in post-lingual asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) patients were not clear. AIMS/OBJECTIVES: To identify the variables influencing the outcome of CI in post-lingual AHL patients. METHOD: We included 18 adult subjects who had CI in the worse ear due to post-lingual AHL with average hearing asymmetry of 36 dB. Speech perception scores were evaluated in the sound field with hearing aid on the better ear before CI, and with the cochlear implant in the worse ear at 3, 6, and 12 months after CI switch-on. RESULTS: Average increases in phonetically balanced word score, spondee word score, and everyday sentence score at 12 months from CI switch-on compared with those before CI were 38.9%p, 46.2%p, and 52.4%p, respectively. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that speech perception scores were negatively influenced by age at implantation and hearing threshold difference of both ears (HTD-Both) itself, rather than the worse or better ear hearing thresholds. CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE: Post-lingual AHL subjects with high average hearing asymmetry can benefit from CI in the worse ear, while CI outcomes can be adversely influenced by HTD-Both and age at implantation both in the short- and long-term follow-up.

Expanding the indications for the bone anchored hearing system (BAHS) in patients with single sided deafness.

PURPOSE: Provide data to support expansion of FDA indications for the Bone anchored hearing system (BAHS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study in a tertiary otologic referral center included106 consecutive subjects who were implanted with a Bone Anchored Hearing System (BAHS) between January 2009 and January 2015 for single sided deafness. Subjects were divided into three groups by bone conduction pure tone average (PTA) of the better hearing ear: 0-20 dB (group 1), 21-40 dB (group 2) and 41-55 dB (group 3). All patients underwent BAHS implantation. Speech perception data (Hearing In Noise Test and Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant testing) was collected before and after surgical intervention. Patient-reported quality of life measures were obtained at least 6 months after activation. These included the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit and Glasgow Benefit Inventory. RESULTS: All three groups of subjects demonstrated statistically significant improvement in outcome measures following BAHS. Subject reported quality of life outcome measures demonstrated significant improvement in disability from hearing loss and in quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with single sided deafness who have bone conduction thresholds worse than 20 dB in their contralateral ear are still able to benefit significantly from BAHS.