Purpose To evaluate the performance of the NoSAS (neck, obesity, snoring, age, sex) score, the STOP-Bang (snoring, tiredness, observed apneas, blood pressure, body mass index, age, neck circumference, gender) questionnaire, and the Epworth sleepiness score (ESS) as a screening tool for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) severity based on the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and the oxygen desaturation index (ODI). Methods Data from 235 patients who were monitored by ambulant polysomnography (PSG) were retrospectively analyzed. OSA severity was classified based on the AHI; similar classification categories were made based on the ODI. Discrimination was assessed by the area under the curve (AUC), while predictive parameters were calculated by four-grid contingency tables. Results The NoSAS score and the STOP-Bang questionnaire were both equally adequate screening tools for the AHI and the ODI with AUC ranging from 0.695 to 0.767 and 0.684 to 0.767, respectively. Both questionnaires perform better when used as a continuous variable. The ESS did not show adequate discrimination for screening for OSA (AUC ranging from 0.450 to 0.525). Male gender, age, and BMI proved to be the strongest individual predictors in this cohort. Conclusion This is the first study to evaluate the predictive performance of three different screening instruments with respect to both the AHI and the ODI. This is important, due to increasing evidence that the ODI may have a higher reproducibility in the clinical setting. The NoSAS score and the STOP-Bang questionnaire proved to be equally adequate to predict OSA severity based on both the AHI and the ODI.

Objectives: Fatigue is frequently observed in children with chronic diseases and can affect the quality of life (QoL). However, research in children with unilateral hearing loss (UHL) is scarce. Subsequently, no studies investigated the effects of hearing aids on fatigue in children. This study investigates subjective fatigue and hearing-related QoL in children with UHL. Furthermore, it evaluates the influence of hearing aids, subject-specific factors, and respondent-type on subjective fatigue.Study Design: A cross-sectional study was conducted from June 2020 until September 2020 at the department of otorhinolaryngology in a tertiary referral center.Methods: The primary outcome was the difference in subjective fatigue and hearing-related QoL between children with unaided UHL, aided UHL, and normal hearing. Subjective fatigue and hearing-related QoL were measured using the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ Multidimensional Fatigue Scale (PedsQL™-MFS) and Hearing Environments and Reflection on Quality of Life (HEAR-QL™) questionnaires.Results: Along with 36 aided children with UHL, 34 unaided and 36 normal-hearing children were included. Child reports revealed significantly more cognitive fatigue in children with aided UHL than children with normal hearing (median difference 12.5, P = .013). Parents reported more fatigue in children with UHL compared to normal-hearing siblings. Especially children with aided UHL seemed at increased risk for fatigue. Children with UHL scored lower on hearing-related QoL than children with normal hearing. No apparent differences were found in fatigue and QoL between children with unaided and aided UHL.Conclusion: Children with unaided and even aided UHL seem to experience more subjective fatigue and lower hearingrelated QoL than children with normal hearing. Prospective longitudinal studies are required to investigate the influence of hearing aids on fatigue and QoL in individual patients.

Introduction Bone conduction devices (BCD) are effective for hearing rehabilitation in patients with conductive and mixed hearing loss or single-sided deafness. Transcutaneous bone conduction devices (tBCD) seem to lead to fewer soft tissue complications than percutaneous BCDs (pBCD) but have other drawbacks such as MRI incompatibility and higher costs. Previous cost analyses have shown a cost advantage of tBCDs. The purpose of this study is to compare long-term post-implantations costs between percutaneous and transcutaneous BCDs. Materials and methods Retrospective data from 77 patients implanted in a tertiary referral centre with a pBCD (n = 34), tBCD (n = 43; passive (tpasBCD; n = 34) and active (tactBCD; n = 9) and a reference group who underwent cochlear implantation (CI; n = 34), were included in a clinical cost analysis. Post-implantation costs were determined as the sum of consultation (medical and audiological) and additional (all post-operative care) costs. Median (cumulative) costs per device incurred for the different cohorts were compared at 1, 3 and 5 years after implantation. Results After 5 years, the total post-implantation costs of the pBCD vs tpasBCD were not significantly different (€1550.7 [IQR 1174.6–2797.4] vs €2266.9 [IQR 1314.1–3535.3], p = 0.185), nor was there a significant difference between pBCD vs tactBCD (€1550.7 [1174.6–2797.4] vs €1428.8 [1277.3–1760.4], p = 0.550). Additional post-implantation costs were significantly highest in the tpasBCD cohort at all moments of follow-up. Conclusion Total costs related to post-operative rehabilitation and treatments are comparable between percutaneous and transcutaneous BCDs up to 5 years after implantation. Complications related to passive transcutaneous bone conduction devices appeared significantly more expensive after implantation due to more frequent explantations.