OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 130:1558-1564, 2020.
OBJECTIVE: 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 VSpatients. METHODS: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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 130:1558-1564, 2020.
Authors: Johannes Voelker; Christine Voelker; Jonas Engert; Nikolas Goemann; Rudolf Hagen; Kristen Rak Journal: Cells Date: 2021-10-19 Impact factor: 6.600