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: 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 Purpose We delineated the association between otolithic dysfunction and blood pressure (BP) variability. Methods: We prospectively recruited 145 consecutive patients (age=71 [59–79] years, median [interquartile range]; 76 females) with orthostatic intolerance between December 2021 and December 2023 at a tertiary hospital in South Korea. Each patient underwent evaluations of cervical and ocular vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials (oVEMPs), 24-h noninvasive ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), and a head-up tilt-table test using the Finometer device. As measures of BP variability, the standard deviations (SDs) of the systolic BP (SBP SD) and the diastolic BP were calculated based on serial ABPM recordings. Patients were divided into those with orthostatic hypotension (OH, n=68) and those with a normal head-up tilt-table test despite orthostatic intolerance (NOI, n=77) groups. Results: A multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that OH was associated with bilateral oVEMP abnormalities (p=0.021), SBP SD (p=0.012), and female sex (p=0.004). SBP SD was higher in patients with OH than in those with NOI (p<0.001), and was not correlated with n1–p1 amplitude (p=0.491) or normalized p13–n23 amplitude (p=0.193) in patients with OH.The sensitivity and specificity for differentiating OH from NOI were 72.1% and 67.5%, respectively, at a cutoff value of 12.7 mm Hg for SBP SD, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.73. Conclusions Bilaterally deficient oVEMP responses may be associated with OH regardless of 24-h BP variability, reflecting the integrity of the otolith-autonomic reflex during orthostasis. Alternatively, 24-h BP variability is predominantly regulated by the baroreflex, which also participates in securing orthostatic tolerance complementary to the vestibulo-autonomic reflex.