No abstract

No abstract

Purpose Implantable hearing devices are indicated for candidates who could not benefit from conventional hearing aids. This study aimed at evaluating their effectiveness in rehabilitation of hearing loss. Methods This study included patients who received bone conduction implants at Tertiary Teaching Hospitals, between December 2018 and November 2020. Data were collected prospectively, and patients were assessed both subjectively using COSI and GHABP questionnaires and objectively using bone conduction and air conduction thresholds, unaided and aided free field speech thresholds. Outcomes of transcutaneous (tBCHD) and percutaneous (pBCHD) bone conduction hearing devices were compared as well as outcomes of unilateral versus bilateral fitting. Postoperative skin complications were recorded and compared. Results A total of seventy patients were included, thirty-seven of them were implanted with tBCHD and thirty-three with pBCHD. Fifty-five patients were fitted unilaterally compared to 15 bilateral fitting. Preoperative mean of bone conduction (BC) of the overall sample was 23.27 ± 10.91 dB, the Air conduction (AC) mean was 69.27 ± 13.75 dB. There was significant difference between unaided free field speech score (88.51% ± 7.92) and the aided score (96.79 ± 2.38) with P value = 0.00001. The postoperative assessment using GHABP showed a benefit score mean of 70.95 ± 18.79, patient satisfaction score mean of 78.15 ± 18.39. The disability score improved significantly from a mean of 54.08 ± 15.26 to residual score of only 12.50 ± 10.22 with P < 0.00001 postoperatively. There was significant improvement in all parameters of COSI questionnaire following fitting. Comparison of pBCHDs vs tBCHDs showed a non-significant difference regarding FF speech as well as GHABP parameters. Comparison of the post-operative skin complications was in favor of tBCHDs as (86.5%) of the patients had normal skin postoperatively, compared to 45.5% of patients with pBCHDs devices. Bilateral implantation showed significant improvement of FF speech scores, GHABP satisfaction score, as well as COSI score results. Conclusion Bone conduction hearing devices are effective solution for rehabilitation of hearing loss. Bilateral fitting yields satisfactory outcomes in suitable candidates. Transcutaneous devices carry significantly lower skin complication rates compared to percutaneous devices.

Background The novel coronavirus started as an outbreak in Wuhan, China, in December 2019.The outbreak was declared a pandemic by the WHO on 12 March 2020. The virus is called SARS-CoV-2, and the virus-induced disease is called COVID-19. The infection spreads via droplets or direct contact with contaminated surfaces. Airborne transmission occurs during aerosol-generating procedures on patients. Many otologic procedures are considered AGPs and therefore require precautions to protect staff and patients and minimize transmission of the disease. Main body Outpatient otology activity has seen changes, including virtual clinics and limitation of face-to-face consultations, to ensure safety. Powered instrumentation should be avoided during surgical procedures unless necessary or replaced with other tools, and if performed, enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE) must be used. Ear, nose, and throat (ENT) examination is recommended for any patient with full PPE in place except for consultations done without examination. Systemic steroid administration for treating conditions such as Bell’s palsy and sudden sensorineural hearing loss should be discussed with both the patient and infectious diseases specialist to weigh risks against benefits. Triaging of patients and prioritization is unavoidable during the pandemic and even after due to the limitations of clinic and theater time. All emergency/urgent cases are considered potentially COVID-19 positive. For the semi-urgent and all elective cases, COVID-19 testing 48 h prior to surgery, strict quarantine awaiting test results, and repeat testing on day of surgery if rapid tests are available are the precautions suggested. Different measures should be in place to minimize staff potential exposure intraoperatively. Conclusions Otology practice has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Various measures are in place to ensure the delivery of safe and effective service for patients and health care workers.