Preliminary results and considerations in hearing screening of newborns based on otoacoustic emissions

1993 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Salomon ◽  
J. Groth ◽  
B. Anthonisen
Author(s):  
Anka Nestorova ◽  
Darina A. Ivanova

Hearing is one of the five human senses and represents the ability to perceive sounds through the hearing system. The presence of normal auditory perception is one of the prerequisites for the emergence and development of speech in children. Conducting neonatal auditory screening is part of the early neonatal screening and incorporates examining infant’s hearing shortly after birth. A screening device is used that emits very low sounds with the help of simultaneous "otoacoustic emissions" from the inner ear of this acoustic stimulation. The latest researches show that in one or two in a thousand births the child has congenital deafness or impaired hearing. Aim: To acquaint midwifery students with the implementation of universal neonatal hearing screening using information from the Trakia Electronic University. Materials and Methods: The conducted survey allows us to study students' attitudes towards the audio screening. Study materials are accessible via the Internet in our e-university. The use of digital and multimedia materials is a way of enhancing the students' professional competence and the effectiveness of the learning process.


2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-195
Author(s):  
Vybhavi MK ◽  
Srinivas V

Introduction  The present study was devised to estimate the prevalence of neonatal hearing loss and document the importance of using DPOAE as a screening tool for identifying hearing loss in newborns. Materials and Methods This hospital based descriptive study was conducted from August 2018 to August 2019. A total of 928 newborn babies were included in the study. These newborn babies were subjected to hearing screening by distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE) at 24-72 hrs after birth. For pass cases, no further testing was done. For refer cases, repeat testing with DPOAE was done within 15-30 days. Newborns with refer result on repeat DPOAE testing were subjected to Brainstem evoked response audiometry (BERA) within 3 months to confirm hearing loss. Results Nine hundred and twenty eight newborn babies were screened by DPOAE. 851 newborns passed the first DPOAE hearing screening and 77 newborns gave refer result. 21 newborns were lost to follow-up. 56 newborns underwent repeat DPOAE testing and 5 newborns were referred for BERA. Amongst the 5 newborns who underwent BERA testing, one newborn was diagnosed with bilateral profound hearing loss. Hence, the prevalence of hearing loss of 1.08 per thousand newborn babies was estimated in this study. Conclusion Hearing screening of newborns using DPOAE followed by BERA in refer cases to confirm hearing loss is useful for early detection followed by timely intervention and rehabilitation.


2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 26
Author(s):  
Inken Brockow ◽  
Kristina Söhl ◽  
Uta Nennstiel

Since the 1 January, 2009, newborn hearing screening (NHS) has been obligatory for every child in Germany. NHS is part of the Pediatrics Directive of the Federal Joint Committee. In this directive, details of the procedures and screening quality to be achieved are given. We evaluate if these quality criteria were met in Bavaria in 2016. The NHS data of children born in 2016 in Bavaria were evaluated for quality criteria, such as screening coverage in screening facilities, screening methods, referral rate (rate of failed tests at discharge) and a child’s age at the diagnosis of a hearing disorder. NHS was documented for 116,776 children born in Bavaria in 2016. In the first step, 78,904 newborns were screened with transient evoked otoacoustic emissions and 37,865 with automated auditory brainstem response. Of these, 9182 (7.8%) failed the first test in one or both ears. A second screening before discharge was performed on 53.3% of the newborns with a refer result in the first test, out of which 58.7% received a pass result. After the screening process, 4.6% of the newborns were discharged with a refer result. Only 18% of the first controls after discharge were performed by a pediatric audiologist. In 37.9% of the newborns, the screening center intervened to assure the control of any failed screening test. The median age of diagnosis for bilateral hearing loss was 5.3 months. In Bavaria, NHS was implemented successfully. A tracking system for all children who failed the hearing screening test is pivotal for early diagnosis and therapy of children with hearing deficiency.


2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (06) ◽  
pp. 495-502 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amisha Kanji ◽  
Katijah Khoza-Shangase

AbstractThe ideal hearing screening measure is yet to be defined, with various newborn hearing screening protocols currently being recommended for different contexts. Such diverse recommendations call for further exploration and definition of feasible and context-specific protocols.The aim of the study was to establish which combinations of audiological screening measures provide both true-positive (TP) and true-negative (TN) results for risk-based hearing screening, at and across time.A longitudinal, repeated-measures design was employed.Three-hundred and twenty-five participants comprised the initial study sample. These participants comprised newborns and infants who were discharged from the neonatal intensive care unit and high care wards to “step down” wards at two public sector hospitals within an academic hospital complex.Transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs), distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs), and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) were conducted at the initial and repeat hearing screening. Diagnostic audiological assessments were also conducted. Results from combinations of audiological screening measures at the initial and repeat hearing screening were analyzed in relation to the final diagnostic outcome (n = 91). Participants were classified as presenting with an overall “refer” if the outcome for any one test was “refer.” The overall screening outcomes for different test combinations were compared using McNemar’s test for paired data. Proportions across different test combinations were compared by the z-test for proportions.Because of the absence of participants with hearing loss in the current study sample, analysis could only be conducted in relation to TN findings (specificity) and not TP findings (sensitivity). The percentage of TN findings was highest at the repeat hearing screening using any test or combination of tests when compared with findings from the initial hearing screening. TEOAE combined with AABR (TEOAE/AABR) (p < 0.0001), DPOAE combined with AABR (DPOAE/AABR) (p < 0.0001), and the combination of all three screening measures (p < 0.0001) yielded the highest percentage specificity at the repeat hearing screening when compared with the initial hearing screening.The best specificity was noted at the repeat hearing screening. Within a resource stricken context, where availability of all screening measures options may not be feasible, current study findings suggest the use of a two-stage AABR protocol or TEOAE/AABR protocol.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document