Abstract Objectives: To review and provide evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of otosclerosis. Methods: Task force members were educated on knowledge synthesis methods, including electronic database search, review and selection of relevant citations, and critical appraisal of selected studies. Articles written in English or Portuguese on otosclerosis were eligible for inclusion. The American College of Physicians’ guideline grading system and the American Thyroid Association’s guideline criteria were used for critical appraisal of evidence and recommendations for therapeutic interventions. Results: The topics were divided into 2 parts: 1) Diagnosis – audiologic and radiologic; 2) Treatment – hearing AIDS, pharmacological therapy, stapes surgery, and implantable devices - bone-anchored devices, active middle ear implants, and Cochlear Implants (CI). Conclusions: The pathophysiology of otosclerosis has not yet been fully elucidated, but environmental factors and unidentified genes are likely to play a significant role in it. Women with otosclerosis are not at increased risk of worsening clinical condition due to the use of contraceptives or during pregnancy. Drug treatment has shown little benefit. If the patient does not want to undergo stapedotomy, the use of hearing aids is well indicated. Implantable systems should be indicated only in rare cases, and the CI should be indicated in cases of profound deafness.

Abstract Objectives: To provide an overview of the main evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis of hearing loss in children and adolescents aged 0–18 years. Methods: Task force members were educated on knowledge synthesis methods, including electronic database search, review and selection of relevant citations, and critical appraisal of selected studies. Articles written in English or Portuguese on childhood hearing loss were eligible for inclusion. The American College of Physicians’ guideline grading system and the American Thyroid Association’s guideline criteria were used for critical appraisal of evidence and recommendations for therapeutic interventions. Results: The topics were divided into 2 parts: (1) treatment of sensorineural hearing loss: individual hearing aids, bilateral cochlear implants, cochlear implants in young children, unilateral hearing loss, and auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder; and (2) treatment of conductive/mixed hearing loss: external/middle ear malformations, ventilation tube insertion, and tympanoplasty in children. Conclusions: In children with hearing loss, in addition to speech therapy, Hearing AIDS (HAs) or implantable systems may be indicated. Even in children with profound hearing loss, both the use of HAs and behavioral assessments while using the device are important.

Abstract Objectives: To provide an overview of the main evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis of hearing loss in children and adolescents aged 0 to 18 years. Methods: Task force members were educated on knowledge synthesis methods, including electronic database search, review and selection of relevant citations, and critical appraisal of selected studies. Articles written in English or Portuguese on childhood hearing loss were eligible for inclusion. The American College of Physicians’ guideline grading system and the American Thyroid Association’s guideline criteria were used for critical appraisal of evidence and recommendations for therapeutic interventions. Results: The evaluation and diagnosis of hearing loss: universal newborn hearing screening, laboratory testing, congenital infections (especially cytomegalovirus), genetic testing and main syndromes, radiologic imaging studies, vestibular assessment of children with hearing loss, auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder, autism spectrum disorder, and noise-induced hearing loss. Conclusions: Every child with suspected hearing loss has the right to diagnosis and appropriate treatment if necessary. This task force considers 5 essential rights: (1) Otolaryngologist consultation; (2) Speech assessment and therapy; (3) Diagnostic tests; (4) Treatment; (5) Ophthalmologist consultation.

Abstract Objective: To review the literature on the diagnosis and treatment of vestibular schwannoma. Methods: Task force members were educated on knowledge synthesis methods, including electronic database search, review and selection of relevant citations, and critical appraisal of selected studies. Articles written in English or Portuguese on vestibular schwannoma were eligible for inclusion. The American College of Physicians’ guideline grading system and the American Thyroid Association’s guideline criteria were used for critical appraisal of evidence and recommendations for therapeutic interventions. Results: The topics were divided into 2 parts: (1) Diagnosis – audiologic, electrophysiologic tests, and imaging; (2) Treatment – wait and scan protocols, surgery, radiosurgery/radiotherapy, and systemic therapy. Conclusions: Decision making in VS treatment has become more challenging. MRI can diagnose increasingly smaller tumors, which has disastrous consequences for the patients and their families. It is important to develop an individualized approach for each case, which highly depends on the experience of each surgical team.

Resumo Introdução: A legislação brasileira atual exige que todos os trabalhadores expostos a ruído recebam um audiograma na admissão, 6 meses após a admissão (primeiro teste periódico), e anualmente após o primeiro teste periódico, mas em outros países as regulamentações dos programas de conservação auditiva não incluem a exigência de teste audiométrico após 6 meses de admissão, mas apenas anualmente. Não há evidências de que a periodicidade adotada pela legislação brasileira seja a mais adequada. Objetivo: Avaliar os três primeiros exames audiométricos ocupacionais de trabalhadores expostos ao ruído. Método: Estudo de coorte histórica com análise transversal. Os participantes eram todos trabalhadores metalúrgicos do sexo masculino com até 40 anos. Os três primeiros audiogramas de cada trabalhador foram analisados: teste audiométrico pré-admissão, teste audiométrico periódico 1 e teste audiométrico periódico 2. Para cada trabalhador, os limiares de frequência médios foram calculados em 3, 4 e 6 kHz nas orelhas esquerda e direita para cada teste. A análise estatística foi feita através do teste não paramétrico de Wilcoxon. Resultados: Foram incluídos 988 trabalhadores. Houve uma diferença significante nos limiares auditivos entre o teste pré-admissão e os 2 testes periódicos subsequentes para as orelhas direita e esquerda. Não houve diferença significante entre o teste 1 e o teste 2 em nenhuma das orelhas. Conclusão: Dada a falta de diferença entre os 2 primeiros testes periódicos, acreditamos que eles poderiam ser combinados em um único teste, ou seja, o primeiro teste audiométrico periódico poderia ser feito após 12 meses de admissão sem comprometer a saúde dos trabalhadores.

Abstract Introduction: Current Brazilian legislation requires that all workers exposed to noise are to be given an audiogram upon hiring, after 6 months of employment (first periodic test), and annually after the first periodic test. In other countries, the regulations of hearing conservation programs do not include the requirement for audiometric testing at 6 months of employment, but only annually. There is no evidence that the periodicity adopted by Brazilian legislation is the most appropriate. Objective: The present study aimed to evaluate the first 3 occupational audiometric tests of workers exposed to noise. Methods: Historical cohort study with cross-sectional analysis. Participants were all male metallurgy workers aged up to 40 years. The first 3 audiograms of each worker were analyzed: pre-employment audiometric test, periodic audiometric test 1, and periodic audiometric test 2. For each worker, mean frequency thresholds were calculated at 3, 4, and 6 kHz in the left and right ears for each test. Statistical analysis was performed using the nonparametric Wilcoxon test. Results: A total of 988 workers were included. There was a significant difference in auditory thresholds between the pre-employment test and the 2 subsequent periodic tests for the right and left ears. There was no significant difference between Test1 and Test2 in either ear. Conclusion: Given the lack of difference between the first 2 periodic tests, we believe that they could be merged into a single test, i.e., first periodic audiometric testing could be performed at 12 months of employment without compromising workers’ health.