Feasibility of Identifying Risk for Conductive Hearing Loss in a Newborn Universal Hearing Screening Program

1993 ◽  
Vol 14 (01) ◽  
pp. 73-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonia Brancia Maxon ◽  
Karl White ◽  
Betty Vohr ◽  
Thomas Behrens
2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (09) ◽  
pp. 673-685 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sreedevi Aithal ◽  
Venkatesh Aithal ◽  
Joseph Kei ◽  
Carlie Driscoll

Background: Although newborn hearing screening programs have been introduced in most states in Australia, the prevalence of conductive hearing loss and middle ear pathology in the infants referred through these programs is not known. Purpose: This study was designed to (1) evaluate the prevalence of conductive hearing loss and middle ear pathology in infants referred by a newborn hearing screening program in north Queensland, (2) compare prevalence rates of conductive hearing loss and middle ear pathology in indigenous and nonindigenous infants, and (3) review the outcomes of those infants diagnosed with conductive hearing loss and middle ear pathology. Research Design: Retrospective chart review of infants referred to the Audiology Department of The Townsville Hospital was conducted. Study Sample: Chart review of 234 infants referred for one or both ears from a newborn hearing screening program in north Queensland was conducted. A total of 211 infants attended the diagnostic appointment. Review appointments to monitor hearing status were completed for 46 infants with middle ear pathology or conductive hearing loss. Data Collection and Analysis: Diagnosis of hearing impairment was made using an age-appropriate battery of audiological tests. Results were analyzed for both initial and review appointments. Results: Mean age at initial diagnostic assessment was 47.5 days (SD = 31.3). Of the 69 infants with middle ear pathology during initial diagnostic assessment, 18 had middle ear pathology with normal hearing, 47 had conductive hearing loss, and 4 had mixed hearing loss. Prevalence of conductive hearing loss in the newborns was 2.97 per 1,000 while prevalence of middle ear pathology (with or without conductive hearing loss) was 4.36 per 1,000. Indigenous Australians or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) infants had a significantly higher prevalence of conductive hearing loss and middle ear pathology than non-ATSI infants (35.19 and 44.45% vs 17.83 and 28.66%, respectively). ATSI infants also showed poor resolution of conductive hearing loss over time with 66.67% of ATSI infants reviewed showing persistent conductive hearing loss compared to 17.86% of non-ATSI infants. Medical management of 17 infants with persistent conductive hearing loss included monitoring, antibiotic treatment, examination under anesthesia, and grommet insertion. Conclusions: Conductive hearing loss was found to be a common diagnosis among infants referred through screening. ATSI infants had significantly higher rates of middle ear pathology and conductive hearing loss at birth and showed poor resolution of middle ear pathology over time compared to non-ATSI infants. Future research using a direct measure of middle ear function as an adjunct to the automated auditory brainstem response screening tool to distinguish conductive from sensorineural hearing loss may facilitate prioritization of infants for assessment, thus reducing parental anxiety and streamlining the management strategies for the respective types of hearing loss.


2018 ◽  
Vol 105 ◽  
pp. 181-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Wroblewska-Seniuk ◽  
Piotr Dabrowski ◽  
Grazyna Greczka ◽  
Katarzyna Szabatowska ◽  
Agata Glowacka ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 1035
Author(s):  
Lok-Yee Joyce Li ◽  
Shin-Yi Wang ◽  
Jinn-Moon Yang ◽  
Chih-Jou Chen ◽  
Cheng-Yu Tsai ◽  
...  

Hearing impairment is a frequent human sensory impairment. It was estimated that over 50% of those aged >75 years experience hearing impairment in the United States. Several hearing impairment–related factors are detectable through screening; thus, further deterioration can be avoided. Early identification of hearing impairment is the key to effective management. However, hearing screening resources are scarce or inaccessible, underlining the importance of developing user-friendly mobile health care systems for universal hearing screening. Mobile health (mHealth) applications (apps) act as platforms for personalized hearing screening to evaluate an individual’s risk of developing hearing impairment. We aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy of smartphone-based air conduction and bone conduction audiometry self-tests with that of standard air conduction and bone conduction pure-tone audiometry tests. Moreover, we evaluated the use of smartphone-based air conduction and bone conduction audiometry self-tests in conductive hearing loss diagnosis. We recruited 103 patients (206 ears) from an otology clinic. All patients were aged ≥20 years. Patients who were diagnosed with active otorrhea was excluded. Moderate hearing impairment was defined as hearing loss with mean hearing thresholds >40 dB. All patients underwent four hearing tests performed by a board-certified audiologist: a smartphone-based air conduction audiometry self-test, smartphone-based bone conduction audiometry self-test, standard air-conduction pure-tone audiometry, and standard bone conduction pure-tone audiometry. We compared and analyzed the results of the smartphone-based air conduction and bone conduction audiometry self-tests with those of the standard air conduction and bone conduction pure-tone audiometry tests. The sensitivity of the smartphone-based air conduction audiometry self-test was 0.80 (95% confidence interval CI = 0.71–0.88) and its specificity was 0.84 (95% CI = 0.76–0.90), respectively. The sensitivity of the smartphone-based bone conduction audiometry self-test was 0.64 (95% CI = 0.53–0.75) and its specificity was 0.71 (95% CI = 0.62–0.78). Among all the ears, 24 were diagnosed with conductive hearing loss. The smartphone-based audiometry self-tests correctly diagnosed conductive hearing loss in 17 of those ears. The personalized smartphone-based audiometry self-tests correctly diagnosed hearing loss with high sensitivity and high specificity, and they can be a reliable screening test to rule out moderate hearing impairment among the population. It provided patients with moderate hearing impairment with personalized strategies for symptomatic control and facilitated individual case management for medical practitioners.


2016 ◽  
Vol 130 (S3) ◽  
pp. S188-S188
Author(s):  
Pieter Kemp ◽  
Jiska van Stralen ◽  
Pim de Graaf ◽  
Erwin Berkhout ◽  
Jan Wolff ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. 826-833 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rik C. Nelissen ◽  
Emmanuel A. M. Mylanus ◽  
Cor W. R. J. Cremers ◽  
Myrthe K. S. Hol ◽  
Ad F. M. Snik

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (12) ◽  
pp. 030006052097228
Author(s):  
Yujie Liu ◽  
Ran Ren ◽  
Shouqin Zhao

The Bonebridge and Vibrant Soundbridge systems are semi-implanted hearing devices, which have been widely applied in patients with congenital conductive hearing loss. However, comparison between these two hearing devices is rare, especially in the same patient. We report a 23-year-old man who underwent successive implantation of Vibrant Soundbridge and Bonebridge devices in the same ear because of dysfunction of the Vibrant Soundbridge. We provide insight on the patient’s experience and compare the audiological and subjective outcomes of satisfaction.


1980 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 335-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
FRED H. BESS ◽  
G. W. MILLER ◽  
MICHAEL E. GLASSCOCK ◽  
GENE W. BRATT

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document