Option For Hearing Rehabilitation Research Articles

Cochlear implantation in patients with inner ear schwannomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis of audiological outcomes.

In patients with inner ear schwannomas (IES), reports on hearing rehabilitation with cochlear implants (CI) have increased over the past decade, most of which are case reports or small case series. The aim of this study is to systematically review the reported hearing results with CI in patients with IES considering thedifferent audiologic outcome measures used in different countries. According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline, a search of published literature was conducted. We included patients with IES (primary or with secondary extension from the internal auditory canal (IAC) to the inner ear, sporadic or NF2 related) undergoing cochlear implantation with or without tumour removal. The audiological results were divided into the categories "monosyllables", "disyllables", "multisyllabic words or numbers", and "sentences". Predefined audiological outcome measures were available from 110 patients and 111 ears in 27 reports. The mean recognition scores for monosyllabic words with CI were 55% (SD:24), for bisyllabic words 61% (SD:36), for multisyllabic words and numbers 87% (SD:25), and 71% (SD:30) for sentences. Results from for multisyllabic words and numbers in general showed a tendency towards a ceiling effect. Possible risk factors for performance below average were higher complexity tumours (inner ear plus IAC/CPA), NF2, CI without tumour removal ("CI through tumour"), and sequential cochlear implantation after tumour removal (staged surgery). Hearing loss in patients with inner ear schwannomas can be successfully rehabilitated with CI with above average speech performance in most cases. Cochlear implantation thus represents a valuable option for hearing rehabilitation also in patients with IES while at the same time maintaining the possibility of MRI follow-up. Further studies should investigate possible risk factors for poor performance. Audiological tests and outcome parameters should be reported in detail and ideally be harmonized to allow better comparison between languages.

Hearing Aid in Vestibular-Schwannoma-Related Hearing Loss: A Review.

(1) Background: Several types of hearing aids are available for the rehabilitation of vestibular-schwannoma (VS)-related hearing loss. There is a lack of recently published papers regarding this theme. The aim of the present work is to organize current knowledge. (2) Methods: A review of the literature regarding the topics "vestibular schwannoma", "hearing loss", and "hearing aid" was performed. Nineteen studies were thus considered. (3) Results: Conventional hearing aids, contralateral routing of signal (CROS) aids, bone anchored hearing aids (BAHA), and others are available options for hearing rehabilitation in VS patients. The speech discrimination score (SDS) is considered the best measure to assess candidacy for rehabilitation with hearing aids. The best hearing rehabilitative conditions in VS patients when using conventional hearing aid devices are a mild-moderate hearing loss degree with good word recognition (more than 50% SDS). CROS-Aid and BAHA are reported to be beneficial. CROS-Aid expands on the area of receiving hearing. BAHA aids use direct bone-conduction stimulation. Unfortunately, there are no available studies focused specifically on VS patients that compare CROS and BAHA technologies. (4) Conclusions: Hearing aids, CROS, and BAHA are viable options for rehabilitating hearing impairment in VS, but require an accurate case-by-case audiological evaluation for rehabilitating hearing impairment in VS. Further studies are needed to prove if what is currently known about similar hearing illnesses can be confirmed, particularly in the case of VS.

Management of Congenital Aural Atresia and Microtia

Microtia is commonly associated with aural atresia, which will cause cosmetic problems as well as hearing impairment. The management of microtia and aural atresia should improve the aesthetic of the external ear and enhance functional hearing. The reconstruction of the auricle can be performed with autologous rib cartilage or a porous polyethylene framework. Surgeons ideally perform the autologous costal cartilage method at 9 years old or higher considering the development of costal cartilage. For porous polyethylene microtia repair, surgical reconstruction can be performed after 5 years of age. Atresiaplasty can be performed in patients who have normal inner ear function and a well-developed middle ear. The Jahrsdoerfer grading scale is used for assessment of middle ear anatomy and scoring 7 or higher expects good results. The other options for hearing rehabilitation include bone conduction hearing devices or middle ear implants. The surgery for bone conduction devices or middle ear implants can be proposed after 5 years of age. Atresiaplasty is recommended in combination with or after autologous rib graft microtia repair and before porous polyethylene microtia repair. The implantation of the hearing devices should not interfere with auricular reconstruction. It can be performed after autologous rib graft microtia repair or combined with ear elevation.

Hearing outcomes in children with single sided deafness: Our experience at a tertiary paediatric otorhinolaryngology unit.

Hearing rehabilitation options for single sided deafness (SSD) include contralateral routing of sound (CROS) aids and bone conduction devices (BCDs). This study aimed to review the management of children with SSD at our tertiary paediatric otolaryngology unit over the last 15 years. A retrospective cohort study was performed. Primary hearing outcomes were measured using the Children's Home Inventory for Listening Difficulties (CHILD) questionnaire score and secondary hearing outcomes were measured using hearing thresholds for speech in noise. Outcomes were measured pre and post bone conduction device (BCD) trial. 49 patients with SSD were identified. 20 children had trial of a BCD. 16 patients had pre- and post- BCD trial CHILD scores available for analysis. There was a statistically significant improvement in CHILD scores and speech in noise testing at +5dB and +0dB following amplification with a BCD. The mean use of BCD was 1.3h per day. We have described the management of children with SSD in our unit. This study demonstrated a statistically significant benefit of BCD use on hearing outcomes. However, device compliance is low suggesting hearing advice choice in the population is complex and further research is warranted.

The Effect of Hearing Aids on Sound Localization in Mild Unilateral Conductive Hearing Loss.

Binaural hearing is of utmost importance for communicating in noisy surroundings and localizing the direction of sound. Unilateral hearing loss (UHL) affects the quality of life in both childhood and adulthood, speech development, and academic achievements. Sound amplification using air-conducting hearing aids (HAs) is a common option for hearing rehabilitation of UHL. The processing time of digital HAs can significantly delay the acoustic stimulation in 3 to 10 milliseconds, which is far longer than the maximal natural interaural time difference (ITD) of 750 microseconds. This can further impair spatial localization in these patients. We sought to assess whether HA effects on ITD and interaural level difference (ILD) impair localization among subjects with unilateral conductive hearing loss (UCHL). "Normal"-hearing participants underwent localization testing in different free field settings. Ten volunteers with "normal"-hearing thresholds participated. Repeated assessments were compared between "normal" (binaural) hearing, UCHL induced by insertion of an inactivated HA to the ear canal (conductive HL), and amplification with a HA. In UCHL mode, with HA switched-off, localization was significantly impaired compared to "normal" hearing (NH; η2 = 0.151). Localization error was more pronounced when sound was presented from the front and from the side of the occluded ear. When switched-on, amplification with HAs significantly improved localization for all participants compared to UCHL. Better localization with HAs was seen in high frequencies compared to low frequencies (η2 = 0.08, 0.03). Even with HAs, localization did not reach that of NH (η2 = 0.034). Mild UCHL caused localization to deteriorate. HAs significantly improved sound localization, albeit the delay caused by the device processing time. Most of the improvements were seen in high-frequency sounds, representing a beneficial effect of amplification on ILD. Our results have potential clinical value in situations of mild CHL, for instance, otitis media with effusion.

Pediatric morphometric study to guide the optimized implantation of the Osia® 2 implant system

PurposeContinuous technological advances result in the availability of new bone conduction hearing implants, of which their suitability for pediatric patients is of major concern. The CochlearTMOsia® 2 is a new active osseointegrated steady-state implant system that uses digital piezoelectric stimulation to treat hearing loss. The implant in the United States was approved for patients aged 12 years and above, whereas the CE mark is independent of age, the only requirement is body weight of at least 7 kg. Therefore, further clinical studies are required to assess device characteristics in younger patients. The aim of our study was to perform a morphometric study among 5–12-year-old children, and to develop a surgical protocol for Osia 2 system implantation based on these findings.MethodsWe examined retrospectively cranial CT scans of 5–12-year-old patients from our clinical database. We measured the bone and soft-tissue thickness in the region of interest, and the position of the sigmoid sinus. 3D printed temporal bones were also used for planning.ResultsSoft-tissue thickness varied between 3.2 ± 0.5 mm and 3.6 ± 0.6 mm and bone thickness varied between 3.5 ± 1.1 mm and 4.7 ± 0.3 mm. The sigmoid sinus was located 1.3 ± 0.2 cm posterior to the ear canal, and the anterior distance was 4.8 ± 0.9 to 7.1 ± 1.1 mm.ConclusionsOur morphometric studies showed that patients aged 5–12 have different anatomical dimensions compared to adults, but that implantation of the Osia 2 system is feasible in these patients using an altered implant positioning recommended by our data. The Cochlear™ Osia® 2 is, therefore, an option for hearing rehabilitation in younger pediatrics.

Scoping review of cochlear implantation in Susac's syndrome.

ObjectiveScoping review of published literature to establish clinical characteristics and audiologic outcomes in patients diagnosed with Susac’s Syndrome(SS) who have undergone cochlear implantation (CI).Data sourcesAll published studies of CI in SS and contribution of two of our own patients who have not been reported previously.MethodsA comprehensive search of MEDLINE (via PubMed) was carried out in March 2020 using the following keywords and related entry terms: Susac’s Syndrome, Cochlear Implantation.ResultsOur search identified a total of five case reports of CI in SS. With the addition of our two patients reported here, we analyzed characteristics and outcomes in seven patients. Mean age at implantation was 30 years old (range 19–46), with six women and one man implanted. Mean time from onset of hearing loss to implantation was 17 months (range three months to four years). Best reported postoperative speech understanding was reported via different metrics, with six of seven patients achieving open set speech scores of 90% or better, and one subject performing at 68%. Vestibular symptoms were present preoperatively in four of seven patients (57%), with vestibular testing reported in two patients, and showing vestibulopathy in one patient. No complications were reported following cochlear implantation.ConclusionCochlear implantation is a viable option for hearing rehabilitation in patients with SS, with levels of attainment of open set speech comparable to other populations of CI candidates.

What is the Right Treatment for Adults With Unilateral Deafness?

What is the Right Treatment for Adults With Unilateral Deafness?

Hearing Status and Aural Rehabilitative Profile of 878 Patients With Sporadic Vestibular Schwannoma.

To examine the hearing status and aural rehabilitative profile in a national cohort of patients with sporadic vestibular schwannoma (VS). Cross-sectional survey METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of Acoustic Neuroma Association members diagnosed with sporadic VS was performed from February 2017 through January 2019. Self-reported results were used to determine the aural rehabilitative profile of respondents. Among survey respondents, 62.2% (546/878) were not using any hearing-assistive device at time of survey. For the 37.8% (332/878) that were utilizing hearing-assistive devices, 32.8% (109/332) reported using a behind-the-ear hearing aid, 23.8% (79/332) used a contralateral routing of signal (CROS) hearing aid, and 21.7% (72/332) used a bone conduction device. Notably, 41.9% (278/663) of patients who previously underwent tumor treatment reported utilizing a hearing rehabilitation device at some point during VS management compared to 27.0% (58/215) of those undergoing observation with serial imaging (P < .001). Of 275 patients with functional hearing in the ipsilateral ear, 26.5% (73/275) reported having used at least one type of hearing device; 24.0% (66/275) reported use of a conventional hearing aid, 0.7% (2/275) a CROS aid, and 0.4% (1/275) a bone conduction device. Among respondents reporting ipsilateral nonfunctional hearing, 44.9% (258/575) reported having used at least one type of hearing device; 13.0% (75/575) a CROS aid, and 12.3% (71/575) a bone conduction device. Even among a cohort with presumably elevated literacy surrounding hearing rehabilitation options, few patients with a history of unilateral vestibular schwannoma ultimately use hearing assistive devices long-term, suggesting that most patients sufficiently adjust to unilateral hearing loss or are unsatisfied with the benefits achieved with current device options. 4 Laryngoscope, 131:1378-1381, 2021.

Microtia and Ear Reconstruction

Microtia is a congenital anomaly where the ear is smaller than normal and often missing its usual architecture. It is frequently accompanied by conductive hearing loss. Severity of microtia is highly variable. It can be an isolated anomaly, associated with other findings, or part of a syndrome. A coordinated approach is warranted to manage both aesthetic and functional concerns. Hearing rehabilitation options include bone conducting hearing aids that can be implanted or worn with a headband, and construction of the auditory canal for suitable candidates. Three treatment options for auricular construction should be considered. First, autologous construction that involves costal cartilage harvest, framework creation and implantation, lobule transposition, tragal and conchal construction, and ear elevation. Brent’s and Nagata’s methods are described, however various modifications exist. Second, alloplastic construction, as pioneered by Reinisch, consisting of a porous polyethylene framework covered by a temporoparietal facia flap, local flaps and skin grafts. Third, auricular prosthesis, mainly those retained with osseointegrated implants, that is an alternative to plastic surgery and suitable for certain microtia patients. Options are reviewed along with their advantages and disadvantages. This review contains 5 tables, 10 figures, and 50 references Key Words: microtia, anotia, ear construction, auricle construction, autologous ear construction, alloplastic ear construction, ear prosthesis, hearing rehabilitation

Towards optogenetic approaches for hearing restoration

Hearing impairment (HI) is the most frequent sensory deficit in humans. As yet there is no causal therapy for sensorineural HI - the most common form – that results from cochlear dysfunction. Hearing aids and electrical cochlear implants (eCIs) remain the key options for hearing rehabilitation. The eCI, used by more than 0.7 Mio people with profound HI or deafness, is considered the most successful neuroprosthesis as it typically enables open speech comprehension in quiet. By electrically stimulating the auditory nerve, eCIs constitute a brain-machine interface re-connecting the patient with the auditory scene. Nonetheless, there are short-comings resulting from the wide spread of electric current inside the cochlea which limit the quality of artificial hearing. Since light can be better confined in space than electric current, optogenetic stimulation of the auditory nerve has been suggested as an alternative approach for hearing restoration, enabling higher resolution of artificial sound encoding. Future optical CIs (oCIS) promise increased spectral selectivity of artificial sound encoding, and hence might improve speech recognition in background noise as well as processing of music.

Clinical Experience of Vibroplasty With Direct Coupling to the Oval Window Without Use of a Coupler.

To investigate the efficacy of direct implantation of a Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) implant in the oval window (OW) without the use of an OW coupler in patients with severe mixed hearing loss. Retrospective chart review METHODS: A total of 62 patients underwent VSB implantation between July 2016 and December 2018 at Severance Hospital in Seoul, South Korea. Among them, eight patients (nine ears) with moderate-to-severe mixed hearing loss were implanted with a VSB directly in the OW. A floating mass transducer (FMT) was attached to the stapes footplate and covered with tragal cartilage. The outcomes were evaluated using pure-tone audiogram and speech audiogram preoperatively and postoperatively. Word recognition score (WRS; % correct) were measured at the most comfortable loudness (MCL) level to evaluate speech perception. All cases posed difficulty with round window vibroplasty during surgery, and eventually, an FMT was appropriately placed in the OW without a coupler. Preoperative and postoperative bone conduction thresholds were not different. VSB-aided threshold improved in terms of functional and effective gains. Interestingly, four cases showed improved air conduction thresholds without the use of a VSB. In addition, MCL level with a VSB was significantly lower than that with a hearing aid, and VSB-aided WRS improved over time. Direct implantation of a VSB in the OW without the use of a coupler showed favorable hearing outcomes, and the OW vibroplasty was safe. Direct OW vibroplasty without a coupler is a reliable procedure and can be a good option for hearing rehabilitation in patients with severe mixed hearing loss. 4 Laryngoscope, 2020.

Clinical Factors Influencing the Trial and Purchase of Bilateral Microphones with Contralateral Routing of Signal in Patients with Asymmetric Sensorineural Hearing Loss.

Background and ObjectivesBilateral microphones with contralateral routing of signal (BiCROS) hearing aid is an option for hearing rehabilitation in individuals with asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss (ASNHL). The clinical factors influencing the trial and purchase of BiCROS were investigated.Subjects and MethodsWe reviewed the medical records of 78 patients with ASNHL who were recommended to use BiCROS and analyzed the demographic and audiological factors influencing the trial and purchase of BiCROS.ResultsAmong the 78 patients, 52 (66.7%) availed of the free BiCROS trial and 21 (26.9%) purchased BiCROS. The mean pure tone audiometry (PTA) air conduction (AC) threshold of the better- and worse-hearing ears were 44.2±12.8 dB and 90.7±22.5 dB HL, respectively. The decision for trial or purchase of BiCROS was not influenced by age, sex, duration of hearing loss of the worse-hearing ear, or PTA AC threshold or speech discrimination score of both ears. The first and third quartiles of the PTA AC thresholds for the better-hearing ear of BiCROS buyers were 38.75 dB and 53.75 dB HL, respectively. The counterpart values for the worse-hearing ear were 72.50 dB and 118.75 dB HL, respectively.ConclusionsThe clinical factors analyzed in this study were found to be irrelevant to the trial and purchase of BiCROS in patients with ASNHL. Nevertheless, the distribution range of the auditory thresholds of the subjects using BiCROS can be a useful basis for the counseling of patients with ASNHL and selection of candidates for BiCROS use.

Trends in hearing rehabilitation use among vestibular schwannoma patients.

Most patients with vestibular schwannoma (VS) have significant hearing loss in the affected ear as a result of either their tumor or treatment. There is a paucity of data on which hearing rehabilitation options, if any, are preferred by patients with VS. Our study analyzed the use of hearing rehabilitation devices among VS patients. Patients with unilateral VS treated at our institution from January 2008 to August 2018 were identified. Those with bilateral VS, profound hearing loss in the contralateral ear, neurofibromatosis type 2, or inadequate follow-up were excluded. Patients who met inclusion criteria were given two online questionnaires: an 8-item instrument that assesses use of hearing rehabilitation devices and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit. Of 212 eligible patients, 61 completed both surveys. The majority (88%) were able to hear "poorly" or "not at all" in the affected ear, but less than one-third had ever used a hearing rehabilitation device. Most had used conventional hearing aids (30%) or contralateral routing of signal/bilateral contralateral routing of signal (30%), whereas only a handful had used bone-anchored hearing devices or cochlear implant. Patients who did not pursue hearing rehabilitation were either not bothered by their deficit or were unaware of their options. Most had good functionality despite their deficit. Whereas 88% of patients treated for VS had a significant hearing loss, the majority did not pursue hearing rehabilitation but maintained good functional performance. Many did not remember being counseled about hearing rehabilitation options, indicating that regular and repeated counseling may be needed to increase patient utilization of hearing rehabilitation after VS treatment. 4 Laryngoscope, 130:1558-1564, 2020.

Auditory Brainstem Implantation: An Overview

An auditory brainstem implant (ABI) is a surgically implanted central neural auditory prosthesis for the treatment of profound sensorineural hearing loss in children and adults who are not cochlear implant candidates due to a lack of anatomically intact cochlear nerves or implantable cochleae. The device consists of a multielectrode surface array which is placed within the lateral recess of the fourth ventricle along the brainstem and directly stimulates the cochlear nucleus, thereby bypassing the peripheral auditory system. In the United States, candidacy criteria for ABI include deaf patients with neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2) who are 12 years or older undergoing first- or second-side vestibular schwannoma resection. In recent years, several non-NF2 indications for ABI have been explored, including bilateral cochlear nerve avulsion from trauma, complete ossification of the cochlea due to meningitis, or a severe cochlear malformation not amenable to cochlear implantation. In addition, growing experience with ABI in infants and children has been documented with encouraging outcomes. While cochlear implantation generally remains the first-line option for hearing rehabilitation in NF2 patients with stable tumors or post hearing preservation surgery where hearing is lost but a cochlear nerve remains accessible for stimulation, an ABI is the next alternative in cases where the cochlear nerve is absent and/or if the cochlea cannot be implanted. Herein, we review ABI device design, clinical evaluation, indications, operative technique, and outcomes as it relates to lateral skull base pathology.

Factors Influencing Access to Cochlear Implantation in Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children in Southern California.

To determine the epidemiologic relationship of family demographics and educational resources with parental knowledge of and willingness for their children to receive cochlear implantation (CI) for deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children. A total of 213 parents of DHH children were surveyed at local schools, specialized camps, and clinics in Southern California. Data on parents were solicited, including income, insurance status, education level, hearing status, primary language, and motivations towards CI. Sixty-six surveys were included in the analysis. Three of these patients had already undergone CI, thus of the 63 children without CI, 59% had been presented with the option of CI by a healthcare professional and 27% were willing to have their child undergo CI. Willingness for children to undergo CI was statistically higher in families with an annual income less than $15,000 or more than $75,000 (p = 0.02), and children enrolled in specialized schools for DHH (p = 0.02). The leading reasons for unwillingness to undergo CI were risks of surgery (17%) and discouragement from others (14%). A significant gap exists between the number of CI candidates and families and willingness to undergo CI. The difference could be related to socioeconomic status and the patient's school type. This underscores the importance of parental education through the use of a multi-disciplinary team to ensure all hearing rehabilitation options are explained.

Protection of Spiral Ganglion Neurons and Prevention of Auditory Neuropathy.

In the auditory system, the primary sensory neurons, spiral ganglion neurons (SGNs), transmit complex acoustic information from hair cells to the second-order sensory neurons in the cochlear nucleus for sound processing, thus building the initial bridge between the physical world of sound and the perception of that sound. Cochlear SGN loss causes irreversible hearing impairment because this type of neural cell cannot regenerate. A better understanding of the molecular mechanisms of formation, structure, degeneration, and protection of SGNs will help to design potential therapeutic strategies for preservation and replacement of them in the cochlear implant recipient. In this review, we described and summarized the following about SGNs: (1) their cell biology and their peripheral and central connections, (2) mechanisms of their neuronal damage and their protection, and (3) the neural and synaptic mechanism of auditory neuropathy and current options for hearing rehabilitation from auditory neuropathy. The updates of the research progress and the significant issues on these topics were discussed.

Transcutaneous bone conductive implants in patients with conductive/mixed hearing loss: audiological outcomes in noise condition

Background: Recently, the use of transcutaneous bone conduction implants (BCIs) has been increased. However, scarce data about BCI hearing recovery in noise conditions have been reported.Objectives: To investigate the audiological benefits obtained with transcutaneous BCI-Sophono Alpha System in noise conditions. To evaluate post-implantation clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction levels.Materials and methods: Fourteen patients suffering from conductive or mixed hearing loss implanted with the Sophono Alpha System were evaluated. Patients underwent physical examination, free-field pure-tone and speech audiometry both in unaided and aided conditions. The matrix sentence test was employed with fixed noise at 65 dB, and with a fluctuating primary signal, in three different conditions of noise presentations (S0/N0, S0/Ncontra, S0/Nipsi).Results: Hearing gain, expressed as the difference between pre-implant AC and post-implant SAS free field, was on average 26.7 dB. The unaided speech recognition score in quiet conditions had a mean value of 64.6%, and improved after SAS implantation, achieving mean values of 98.2%. SRT50 with the matrix sentence test improved in all three conditions of noise presentation.Conclusions: Sophono Alpha System devices represent a valid treatment option for hearing rehabilitation of patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss. The audiological results regarding hearing gain in noise conditions were good.

Three-year Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing a 4.5-mm-Wide to a 3.75-mm-Wide Titanium Implant for Bone Conduction Hearing.

Objective:To compare 3-year implant stability, survival, and tolerability of a 4.5-mm-wide (test) and a 3.75-mm-wide (control) percutaneous titanium implant for bone-conduction hearing, loaded with the sound processor after 3 weeks.Methods:Sixty implants were allocated in a 2:1 ratio (test-control) in 57 adult patients included in this prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Follow-up visits were performed at 7, 14, 21, and 28 days; 6 and 12 weeks; 6 months; and at 1, 2, and 3 years after implantation. During these visits, the implant stability quotient (ISQ) was measured by means of resonance frequency analysis (RFA). The peri-abutment soft tissue status was assessed according to the Holgers classification. Skin height around the abutment was evaluated.Results:The mean area-under-the-curve (AUC) of ISQ-low was statistically significantly higher for the test implant (65.7 versus 61.4, p = 0.0002). Both implants showed high survival rates (97.4% versus 95.0%, p = 0.6374). Adverse soft tissue reactions were observed sporadically, with no significant inter-group differences. Skin thickening was seen in the majority of the patients, but no correlation with adverse soft tissue reactions or implant type was observed.Conclusion:The 4.5-mm-wide implant provides significantly higher ISQ values during the first 3 years after surgery compared with the previous generation 3.75-mm-wide implant. Both implants showed high survival rates and good tolerability. These long-term results indicate that the wider implant, loaded with a sound processor at 3 weeks, is a safe and well-performing option for hearing rehabilitation in specific types of hearing loss.

Time of Day and Hearing Aid Adoption.

To date, there is little understanding of how contextual factors may influence the decisions individuals make regarding the adoption of options for hearing rehabilitation. This explorative retrospective study investigated whether hearing aid adoption and return rates are associated with the time of the day at which an appointment takes place. The study sample consisted of 24,842 patients experiencing their first audiology appointment. It was observed that hearing aid adoption was significantly associated with appointment times whereby lower hearing aid adoption rates were observed at noon and 4 p.m. It was also observed that hearing aid return rates were significantly associated with appointment times whereby lower return rates were observed at noon and 4 p.m. In light of the methodology employed in the study, it is not possible to unequivocally determine why time of day is associated with hearing aid adoption and return rates. Several possible explanations for the patterns of associations are discussed. In light of previous research observing that hunger lowers risk tolerance and glucose consumption increases risk tolerance, the results are consistent with an interpretation based on risk-aversion resulting from hunger. To establish causality between hunger and decision-making in audiology, additional research employing experimental methodologies are necessary.