Background and Objectives: This study aimed to analyze postoperative performance and mapping characteristics of cochlear implants (CIs) by comparing patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to those without ASD, and to suggest CI mapping solutions in patients with ASD.Subjects and Method This retrospective study enrolled 10 children with ASD and hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI (ASD group), and 20 children with bilateral hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI at the same age (control group). CI performance was analyzed using speech perception tests (categorical auditory performance score and monosyllable, bisyllable, and Ling’s 6 tests) and a sound field test. The mapping characteristics focused on variables related to stimulus intensity and fine-tuning. Results: The performance of the ASD group was significantly poorer than that of the control group in all speech perception and sound field tests. At the comfortable (C) and threshold (T) levels, the ASD group scored significantly lower than the control group. The dynamic range of ASD group was significantly narrower than the control group. The ASD group had significantly lower pulse width, sensitivity, and volume than control group. Conclusion CI mapping in the ASD group showed practical limitations. To avoid overstimulation in patients with ASD, the dynamic range should be set narrow, or the C/T level should be set lower than normal. Key control factors, such as pulse width, sensitivity, and volume, should be set lower than the control group. Although lower performance from CI is generally expected in the ASD group, CI mapping in the ASD group requires a long-term approach with dedicated efforts and patience.

Background: Tinnitus is a multifactorial condition with no universally accepted assessment guidelines. The Korean Tinnitus Study Group previously established consensus statements on the definition, classification, and diagnostic tests for tinnitus. As a continuation of this effort, this study aims to establish expert consensus on tinnitus assessment and treatment outcome evaluation, specifically tailored to the Korean clinical context. Methods: A modified Delphi method involving 26 otology experts from across Korea was used. A two-round Delphi survey was conducted to evaluate statements related to tinnitus assessment before and after treatment. Statements were rated on a scale of 1 to 9 for the level of agreement. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% agreement (score of 7–9) and ≤ 15% disagreement (score of 1–3). Statistical measures such as content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) were calculated to assess agreement levels. Results: Of the 46 assessment-related statements, 17 (37%) reached consensus, though overall pre-treatment assessments showed weak agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.319). Key areas of agreement included the use of the visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and validated questionnaires for pre-treatment evaluation. Five statements, such as the use of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography for diagnosing pulsatile tinnitus, achieved over 90% agreement. For treatment outcome measurements, 8 of 12 statements (67%) reached a consensus, with moderate agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.513). Validated questionnaires and psychoacoustic tests were recommended for evaluating treatment effects within 12 weeks. While standardized imaging for pulsatile tinnitus and additional clinical tests were strongly recommended, full consensus was not achieved across all imaging modalities. Conclusion This study provides actionable recommendations for tinnitus assessment and treatment evaluation, emphasizing the use of standardized tools and individualized approaches based on patient needs. These findings offer a practical framework to enhance consistency and effectiveness in tinnitus management within Korean clinical settings.

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to analyze postoperative performance and mapping characteristics of cochlear implants (CIs) by comparing patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to those without ASD, and to suggest CI mapping solutions in patients with ASD.Subjects and Method This retrospective study enrolled 10 children with ASD and hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI (ASD group), and 20 children with bilateral hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI at the same age (control group). CI performance was analyzed using speech perception tests (categorical auditory performance score and monosyllable, bisyllable, and Ling’s 6 tests) and a sound field test. The mapping characteristics focused on variables related to stimulus intensity and fine-tuning. Results: The performance of the ASD group was significantly poorer than that of the control group in all speech perception and sound field tests. At the comfortable (C) and threshold (T) levels, the ASD group scored significantly lower than the control group. The dynamic range of ASD group was significantly narrower than the control group. The ASD group had significantly lower pulse width, sensitivity, and volume than control group. Conclusion CI mapping in the ASD group showed practical limitations. To avoid overstimulation in patients with ASD, the dynamic range should be set narrow, or the C/T level should be set lower than normal. Key control factors, such as pulse width, sensitivity, and volume, should be set lower than the control group. Although lower performance from CI is generally expected in the ASD group, CI mapping in the ASD group requires a long-term approach with dedicated efforts and patience.

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to analyze postoperative performance and mapping characteristics of cochlear implants (CIs) by comparing patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to those without ASD, and to suggest CI mapping solutions in patients with ASD.Subjects and Method This retrospective study enrolled 10 children with ASD and hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI (ASD group), and 20 children with bilateral hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI at the same age (control group). CI performance was analyzed using speech perception tests (categorical auditory performance score and monosyllable, bisyllable, and Ling’s 6 tests) and a sound field test. The mapping characteristics focused on variables related to stimulus intensity and fine-tuning. Results: The performance of the ASD group was significantly poorer than that of the control group in all speech perception and sound field tests. At the comfortable (C) and threshold (T) levels, the ASD group scored significantly lower than the control group. The dynamic range of ASD group was significantly narrower than the control group. The ASD group had significantly lower pulse width, sensitivity, and volume than control group. Conclusion CI mapping in the ASD group showed practical limitations. To avoid overstimulation in patients with ASD, the dynamic range should be set narrow, or the C/T level should be set lower than normal. Key control factors, such as pulse width, sensitivity, and volume, should be set lower than the control group. Although lower performance from CI is generally expected in the ASD group, CI mapping in the ASD group requires a long-term approach with dedicated efforts and patience.

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to analyze postoperative performance and mapping characteristics of cochlear implants (CIs) by comparing patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to those without ASD, and to suggest CI mapping solutions in patients with ASD.Subjects and Method This retrospective study enrolled 10 children with ASD and hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI (ASD group), and 20 children with bilateral hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI at the same age (control group). CI performance was analyzed using speech perception tests (categorical auditory performance score and monosyllable, bisyllable, and Ling’s 6 tests) and a sound field test. The mapping characteristics focused on variables related to stimulus intensity and fine-tuning. Results: The performance of the ASD group was significantly poorer than that of the control group in all speech perception and sound field tests. At the comfortable (C) and threshold (T) levels, the ASD group scored significantly lower than the control group. The dynamic range of ASD group was significantly narrower than the control group. The ASD group had significantly lower pulse width, sensitivity, and volume than control group. Conclusion CI mapping in the ASD group showed practical limitations. To avoid overstimulation in patients with ASD, the dynamic range should be set narrow, or the C/T level should be set lower than normal. Key control factors, such as pulse width, sensitivity, and volume, should be set lower than the control group. Although lower performance from CI is generally expected in the ASD group, CI mapping in the ASD group requires a long-term approach with dedicated efforts and patience.

Background: Tinnitus is a multifactorial condition with no universally accepted assessment guidelines. The Korean Tinnitus Study Group previously established consensus statements on the definition, classification, and diagnostic tests for tinnitus. As a continuation of this effort, this study aims to establish expert consensus on tinnitus assessment and treatment outcome evaluation, specifically tailored to the Korean clinical context. Methods: A modified Delphi method involving 26 otology experts from across Korea was used. A two-round Delphi survey was conducted to evaluate statements related to tinnitus assessment before and after treatment. Statements were rated on a scale of 1 to 9 for the level of agreement. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% agreement (score of 7–9) and ≤ 15% disagreement (score of 1–3). Statistical measures such as content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) were calculated to assess agreement levels. Results: Of the 46 assessment-related statements, 17 (37%) reached consensus, though overall pre-treatment assessments showed weak agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.319). Key areas of agreement included the use of the visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and validated questionnaires for pre-treatment evaluation. Five statements, such as the use of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography for diagnosing pulsatile tinnitus, achieved over 90% agreement. For treatment outcome measurements, 8 of 12 statements (67%) reached a consensus, with moderate agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.513). Validated questionnaires and psychoacoustic tests were recommended for evaluating treatment effects within 12 weeks. While standardized imaging for pulsatile tinnitus and additional clinical tests were strongly recommended, full consensus was not achieved across all imaging modalities. Conclusion This study provides actionable recommendations for tinnitus assessment and treatment evaluation, emphasizing the use of standardized tools and individualized approaches based on patient needs. These findings offer a practical framework to enhance consistency and effectiveness in tinnitus management within Korean clinical settings.

Background: Tinnitus is a multifactorial condition with no universally accepted assessment guidelines. The Korean Tinnitus Study Group previously established consensus statements on the definition, classification, and diagnostic tests for tinnitus. As a continuation of this effort, this study aims to establish expert consensus on tinnitus assessment and treatment outcome evaluation, specifically tailored to the Korean clinical context. Methods: A modified Delphi method involving 26 otology experts from across Korea was used. A two-round Delphi survey was conducted to evaluate statements related to tinnitus assessment before and after treatment. Statements were rated on a scale of 1 to 9 for the level of agreement. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% agreement (score of 7–9) and ≤ 15% disagreement (score of 1–3). Statistical measures such as content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) were calculated to assess agreement levels. Results: Of the 46 assessment-related statements, 17 (37%) reached consensus, though overall pre-treatment assessments showed weak agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.319). Key areas of agreement included the use of the visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and validated questionnaires for pre-treatment evaluation. Five statements, such as the use of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography for diagnosing pulsatile tinnitus, achieved over 90% agreement. For treatment outcome measurements, 8 of 12 statements (67%) reached a consensus, with moderate agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.513). Validated questionnaires and psychoacoustic tests were recommended for evaluating treatment effects within 12 weeks. While standardized imaging for pulsatile tinnitus and additional clinical tests were strongly recommended, full consensus was not achieved across all imaging modalities. Conclusion This study provides actionable recommendations for tinnitus assessment and treatment evaluation, emphasizing the use of standardized tools and individualized approaches based on patient needs. These findings offer a practical framework to enhance consistency and effectiveness in tinnitus management within Korean clinical settings.

Background: Tinnitus is a multifactorial condition with no universally accepted assessment guidelines. The Korean Tinnitus Study Group previously established consensus statements on the definition, classification, and diagnostic tests for tinnitus. As a continuation of this effort, this study aims to establish expert consensus on tinnitus assessment and treatment outcome evaluation, specifically tailored to the Korean clinical context. Methods: A modified Delphi method involving 26 otology experts from across Korea was used. A two-round Delphi survey was conducted to evaluate statements related to tinnitus assessment before and after treatment. Statements were rated on a scale of 1 to 9 for the level of agreement. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% agreement (score of 7–9) and ≤ 15% disagreement (score of 1–3). Statistical measures such as content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) were calculated to assess agreement levels. Results: Of the 46 assessment-related statements, 17 (37%) reached consensus, though overall pre-treatment assessments showed weak agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.319). Key areas of agreement included the use of the visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and validated questionnaires for pre-treatment evaluation. Five statements, such as the use of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography for diagnosing pulsatile tinnitus, achieved over 90% agreement. For treatment outcome measurements, 8 of 12 statements (67%) reached a consensus, with moderate agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.513). Validated questionnaires and psychoacoustic tests were recommended for evaluating treatment effects within 12 weeks. While standardized imaging for pulsatile tinnitus and additional clinical tests were strongly recommended, full consensus was not achieved across all imaging modalities. Conclusion This study provides actionable recommendations for tinnitus assessment and treatment evaluation, emphasizing the use of standardized tools and individualized approaches based on patient needs. These findings offer a practical framework to enhance consistency and effectiveness in tinnitus management within Korean clinical settings.

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to analyze postoperative performance and mapping characteristics of cochlear implants (CIs) by comparing patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to those without ASD, and to suggest CI mapping solutions in patients with ASD.Subjects and Method This retrospective study enrolled 10 children with ASD and hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI (ASD group), and 20 children with bilateral hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI at the same age (control group). CI performance was analyzed using speech perception tests (categorical auditory performance score and monosyllable, bisyllable, and Ling’s 6 tests) and a sound field test. The mapping characteristics focused on variables related to stimulus intensity and fine-tuning. Results: The performance of the ASD group was significantly poorer than that of the control group in all speech perception and sound field tests. At the comfortable (C) and threshold (T) levels, the ASD group scored significantly lower than the control group. The dynamic range of ASD group was significantly narrower than the control group. The ASD group had significantly lower pulse width, sensitivity, and volume than control group. Conclusion CI mapping in the ASD group showed practical limitations. To avoid overstimulation in patients with ASD, the dynamic range should be set narrow, or the C/T level should be set lower than normal. Key control factors, such as pulse width, sensitivity, and volume, should be set lower than the control group. Although lower performance from CI is generally expected in the ASD group, CI mapping in the ASD group requires a long-term approach with dedicated efforts and patience.

Background: The aim of this study is to review data on infants who received hearing aid support through the Infantile Hearing Aid Support Program after the settlement of universal newborn hearing screening (NHS) in the country over the past five years in Korea. This study seeks to identify the characteristics of infants with bilateral moderate hearing loss and to explore effective strategies for auditory rehabilitation by analyzing the timing of hearing aid interventions and regional disparities. Methods: We analyzed the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) records and the Infantile Hearing Aid Support Program database between January 2019 and December 2023. Our analysis included the NHS performance rate, NHS results, diagnostic hearing test outcomes, types of hearing loss, and the relationship between NHS results and hearing loss risk factors. Additionally, we examined the submission dates for the program, hearing aid purchase dates, types of hearing aids, and whether the residential area, prescription area, and hearing aid purchase areas matched. Results: In this period, a total of 1,318,551 neonates were born and 540 bilateral moderate hearing loss infants registered for the Infantile Hearing Aid Support Program. The NHS performance rate increased to 95.4% by 2023, while the proportion of infants receiving diagnostic hearing tests within three months was 46.2%. The rate of infants receiving hearing aids within six months for auditory rehabilitation was 22.4%. Although no correlation was found between risk factors for hearing loss and NHS results, it was observed that infants admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit or with other syndromes had a higher likelihood of being diagnosed with moderate hearing loss, even if they passed the NHS. Finally, there were regional disparities in access to hearing aid prescriptions and rehabilitation. Conclusion Our findings suggest that auditory rehabilitation achieves greater focus following the implementation of NHS. This study also provides valuable insights into the hearing status and rehabilitation outcomes of infants with moderate hearing loss.Furthermore, we anticipate that these results will contribute to informing policies aimed at reducing regional disparities in access to auditory rehabilitation services.