Unilateral tinnitus resulting from single-sided deafness can be treated with electrical stimulation via a CI. The outcomes of this pilot study demonstrate a new method for treatment of tinnitus in select subjects, perhaps an important new indication for cochlear implantation.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the different etiologies and clinical subtypes of bilateral vestibular hypofunction (BVH) and the value of diagnostic tools in the diagnostic process of BVH.Materials and methodsA retrospective case review was performed on 154 patients diagnosed with BVH in a tertiary referral center, between 2013 and 2015. Inclusion criteria comprised (1) imbalance and/or oscillopsia during locomotion and (2) summated slow phase velocity of nystagmus of less than 20°/s during bithermal caloric tests.ResultsThe definite etiology of BVH was determined in 47% of the cases and the probable etiology in 22%. In 31%, the etiology of BVH remained idiopathic. BVH resulted from more than 20 different etiologies. In the idiopathic group, the percentage of migraine was significantly higher compared to the non-idiopathic group (50 versus 11%, p < 0.001). Among all patients, 23.4% were known with autoimmune disorders in their medical history. All four clinical subtypes (recurrent vertigo with BVH, rapidly progressive BVH, slowly progressive BVH, and slowly progressive BVH with ataxia) were found in this population. Slowly progressive BVH with ataxia comprised only 4.5% of the cases. The head impulse test was abnormal in 94% of the cases. The torsion swing test was abnormal in 66%. Bilateral normal hearing to moderate hearing loss was found in 49%. Blood tests did not often contribute to the determination of the etiology of the disease. Abnormal cerebral imaging was found in 21 patients.ConclusionBVH is a heterogeneous condition with various etiologies and clinical characteristics. Migraine seems to play a significant role in idiopathic BVH and autoimmunity could be a modulating factor in the development of BVH. The distribution of etiologies of BVH probably depends on the clinical setting. In the diagnostic process of BVH, the routine use of some blood tests can be reconsidered and a low-threshold use of audiometry and cerebral imaging is advised. The torsion swing test is not the “gold standard” for diagnosing BVH due to its lack of sensitivity. Future diagnostic criteria of BVH should consist of standardized vestibular tests combined with a history that is congruent with the vestibular findings.

Introduction A conservative treatment strategy is often proposed as a primary treatment option in the management of vestibular schwannomas (VS). In this "wait and scan" policy, audiovestibular symptoms are monitored regularly, and VS growth is measured on consecutive magnetic resonance images (MRI). The aim of this study is validation of two-dimensional versus volume MRI assessment in the longitudinal follow-up of VS and to define tumor growth beyond measurement error. Methods MRI scans of 68 consecutive patients with VS were analyzed retrospectively. Two-dimensional and volume measurements on contrast enhanced (CE) T1-and T2-weighted images were performed independently by two readers. Smallest detectable differences (SDD) were calculated, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were determined for both assessment methods. Results Two-dimensional and volume measurements both showed best reproducibility on CE T1-weighted images. SDD for differences relative to baseline MRI [SDD (%)]for two-dimensional measurements had a higher interobserver error compared to volume measurements (40% versus 19.7%), which decreases when tumor size increases. The ICC for two-dimensional measurements in three directions was 0.947, 0.974, and 0.978 and for volume measurements 0.999. Conclusion Volume measurements are more accurate compared to two-dimensional measurements for the evaluation of VS growth. These measurements are assessed preferably on CE T1-weighted images. SDD (%) strongly depends on VS size. SDD between consecutive scans exceeds the common clinical applied criterion of 1 or 2 mm growth to define growth.

Background: While hearing aids for a contralateral routing of signals (CROS-HA) and bone conduction devices have been the traditional treatment for single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), in recent years, cochlear implants (CIs) have increasingly become a viable treatment choice, particularly in countries where regulatory approval and reimbursement schemes are in place. Part of the reason for this shift is that the CI is the only device capable of restoring bilateral input to the auditory system and hence of possibly reinstating binaural hearing. Although several studies have independently shown that the CI is a safe and effective treatment for SSD and AHL, clinical outcome measures in those studies and across CI centers vary greatly. Only with a consistent use of defined and agreed-upon outcome measures across centers can high-level evidence be generated to assess the safety and efficacy of CIs and alternative treatments in recipients with SSD and AHL. Methods: This paper presents a comparative study design and minimum outcome measures for the assessment of current treatment options in patients with SSD/AHL. The protocol was developed, discussed, and eventually agreed upon by expert panels that convened at the 2015 APSCI conference in Beijing, China, and at the CI 2016 conference in Toronto, Canada. Results: A longitudinal study design comparing CROS-HA, BCD, and CI treatments is proposed. The recommended outcome measures include (1) speech in noise testing, using the same set of 3 spatial configurations to compare binaural benefits such as summation, squelch, and head shadow across devices; (2) localization testing, using stimuli that rove in both level and spectral content; (3) questionnaires to collect quality of life measures and the frequency of device use; and (4) questionnaires for assessing the impact of tinnitus before and after treatment, if applicable. Conclusion: A protocol for the assessment of treatment options and outcomes in recipients with SSD and AHL is presented. The proposed set of minimum outcome measures aims at harmonizing assessment methods across centers and thus at generating a growing body of high-level evidence for those treatment options.

Background: The concept of the vestibular implant is primarily to artificially restore the vestibular function in patients with a bilateral vestibular loss (BVL) by providing the central nervous system with motion information using electrical stimulation of the vestibular nerve. Our group initiated human trials about 10 years ago. Methods: Between 2007 and 2013, 11 patients with a BVL received a vestibular implant prototype providing electrodes to stimulate the ampullary branches of the vestibular nerve. Eye movements were recorded and analyzed to assess the effects of the electrical stimulation. Perception induced by electrical stimulation was documented. Results: Smooth, controlled eye movements were obtained in all patients showing that electrical stimulation successfully activated the vestibulo-ocular pathway. However, both the electrical dynamic range and the amplitude of the eye movements were variable from patient to patient. The axis of the response was consistent with the stimulated nerve branch in 17 out of the 24 tested electrodes. Furthermore, in at least 1 case, the elicited eye movements showed characteristics similar to those of compensatory eye movements observed during natural activities such as walking. Finally, diverse percepts were reported upon electrical stimulation (i.e., rotatory sensations, sound, tickling or pressure) with intensity increasing as the stimulation current increased. Conclusions: These results demonstrate that electrical stimulation is a safe and effective means to activate the vestibular system, even in a heterogeneous patient population with very different etiologies and disease durations. Successful tuning of this information could turn this vestibular implant prototype into a successful artificial balance organ.