Background and Objectives: Some reports propose an increased risk of otitis media and hearing impairment after total laryngectomy. However, the incidence of otitis media following laryngectomy and the mechanism remain unclear. This study aimed to identify the incidence and risk factors of otitis media after total laryngectomy. Subjects and Methods: This retrospective cohort study assessed 77 patients who underwent total laryngectomy from 2010 to 2020 in a tertiary referral center. Serial imaging studies (computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography-CT) were used to assess otitis media. Results: The study enrolled 58 patients (mean age, 67.0±7.7 years; male, 56 [96.6%]); nine (15.5%) underwent a gastrostomy tube (four preoperatively and five postoperatively). Otitis media was confirmed in seven (12.1%) patients. Gastrostomy tube insertion was the only significant risk factor for otitis media (p=0.012). Of the nine patients who underwent gastrostomy tube insertion, four developed otitis media; all four had the procedure after laryngectomy. Conclusions This study found an increased incidence of otitis media after total laryngectomy. Swallowing difficulties likely contribute to otitis media as it occurred more frequently in patients requiring postoperative gastrostomy tube insertion.

Background and Objectives: The speech tests used to evaluate language performance in patients with bilateral deafness (BiD) and cochlear implant (CI) are problematic if applied to patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) because normal ear hearing should be excluded. Thus, we investigated the feasibility of using wireless connection to evaluate speech intelligibility of the CI ear in patients with SSD. Subjects and Methods: Patients with BiD and SSD were administered the word recognition scores (WRS) and speech intelligibility tests using an iPadbased wireless connection and conventional methods. To exclude normal side hearing in patients with SSD, masking noise and “plugged and muffed” method were used in the WRS and speech intelligibility tests, respectively. Results: In patients with BiD, the WRS and speech intelligibility tests results using wireless connection and conventional methods were similar. In patients with SSD, the WRS using masking noise in the normal hearing ear was similar to that of using wireless connection. However, 3 of 11 patients with SSD showed under-masked results if using the “plugged and muffed” method. Conclusions Speech intelligibility testing using wireless connection is a convenient and reliable method for evaluating CI performance in patients with SSD. The “plugged and muffed” method is not recommended for evaluating CI performance in patients with SSD.