medigraphic.com
ISSN 2007-6053 (Print)
Órgano oficial de difusión de los Hospitales Regionales de Alta Especialidad (HRAE)

2013, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Evid Med Invest Salud 2013; 6 (4)

Neonatal hearing screening (Phase II). Factors that may influence the outcome of otoacoustic emissions in healthy newborns. Is time critical?

Berlanga BÓM, Sotelo OME, Rivera VP, Ávalos BER, Trejo MV, González HSE, Salinas TJ

Language: Spanish
References: 23
Page: 113-119
PDF size: 374.53 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Currently, no one disputes the validity of otoacoustic emissions for universal newborn screening to detect infant hearing loss. One problem is the age (in days) on which the study should be determined. The objective was to determine the factors that can influence the results of otoacoustic emissions in healthy newborns: sex, weight and age of taking the test. Material and methods: A retrospective, descriptive, observational, and analytical study was conducted in healthy newborns. 1,138 records were reviewed and 430 of them were studied. These were distributed into four groups of weight and divided into five groups of eight days of age where otoacoustic emissions were made. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and χ2 test to compare the factors with the result using the program SPSS v18. Results: 430 healthy term neonates were included, 219 female (51%) and 211 male (49%). The weight was between 2,500 and 3,999 g, age of making otoacoustic emissions was between 0 and 99 days with a mean of 11 days and standard deviation of four days. Normal hearing was detected in 95.6% and abnormal hearing in 4.3% of patients. There were no significant differences when contrasting gender p = 0.28 (ns) , weight p = 0.38 (ns) and age at test p = 0.58 (ns). In the left ear against results were not statistically significant p = 0.79 (ns) and the right ear was p = 0.084 (ns). Conclusions: The weight, sex and age takes no statistically significant relationship. We also found no significant difference in the age at which the study is conducted. Therefore, we recommend that before otoacoustic emissions are made, ears must be evaluated by an expert, train the staff in handling the available equipment and perform the test preferably on a noise free area.


REFERENCES

  1. INEGI. Centro de Población y Vivienda 2010: Tabuladores de cuestionario básico.

  2. Krista B, Holstum WJ, Eichwald J. Hearing screening for newborns: The Midwife’s role in early hearing detection and intervention. Journal of Midwifery and Women’s Health. 2009; 54 (1): 18-16.

  3. Yoshinaga-Itano C, Sedey AL. Language of early and later-identified children with hearing loss. Pediatrics. 1998; 102:1161-1171.

  4. Hernández-Herrera RJ, Hernández-Aguirre LM, Castillo-Martínez NE et al. Tamizaje y confirmación diagnóstica de hipoacusia. Neonatos de alto riesgo versus población abierta. Rev Med Int Mex Seguro Soc. 2007; 45 (5): 421-426.

  5. Alzina de Aguilar V. Detección precoz de hipoacusia en el recién nacido. An Pediatric (Barc). 2005; 63 (3): 193-198.

  6. Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. Year 2007 Position Statement: Principles and Guidelines for Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Programs. Pediatrics. 2007; 120; 898-921.

  7. Berlanga BOM, Sotelo OE, Trejo MV et al. Tamiz auditivo neonatal (fase I). ¿Son útiles las emisiones otoacústicas en una etapa para detectar hipoacusia en el recién nacido sano? Evid Med Invest Salud. 2013; 6(2): 41-46.

  8. MacFadden D. A speculation about the parallel ear asymmetries and sex differences in hearing sensitivity and otoacustic emissions. Hear Res. 1993; 68: 143-151.

  9. MacFadden D, Pasanen E, Weldele M et al. Masculinized otoacusticem missions in Female Spotted Hyenas (cracuta cracuta). Hormones and Behavior. 2006; 50: 285-292.

  10. Krizman J, Skoe E, Kraus N. Sex differences in auditory subcortical function. Clinical Neurophsiol. 2012; 123: 590-597.

  11. Van Naarden K, Decouflé P. Relative and attributable risks for moderate to profound bilateral sensorineural hearing impairment associated with lower birth weight in children 3 to 10 year old. Pediatrics. 1999; 104: 905-910.

  12. Zamani A, Daneshjou K, Ameni A, Tak J. Estimating the incidence of neonatal hearing loss in high risk neonates. Acta Medica Iranica. 2004; 42 (3): 176-180.

  13. Peñaloza-López YR, García-Pedroza F, Castillo-Maya G, Jiménez-Pérez JA. Hipoacusia-sordera congénita y su relación con el bajo peso al nacimiento en México y algunos otros países. Rev Mex AMCAOF. 2012; 1 (2): 82-89.

  14. Amatuzzi MG, Northrop C, Liberman MC, Thornton A et al. Selective inner hair cell loss in premature infants and cochlea pathological patterns from neonatal intensive care unit autopsies. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001; 127: 629-636.

  15. Mir-Plana B, Sequi-Canet JM, Paredes-Cencillo C, Brines-Solanes J. Influencia del oído medio en la prueba de otoemisiones acústicas. An Esp Pediatr. 1997; 47 (2): 162-166.

  16. Doyle KJ, Burggraaff B, Fujikawa S, Kim J, MacArthut CJ. Neonatal hearing screening with otoscopy, auditory brain stem response and otoacustic emissions. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997; 116: 597-603.

  17. Torrico P, Gómez C, López-Ríos J et al. Influencia de la edad en las otoemisiones acústicas para el screening de hipoacusia infantil. Acta Otorrinolarinfol Esp. 2004; 55: 153-159.

  18. Denia LA, Lombardero PB. Detección, diagnóstico y tratamiento precoz de la sordera en la infancia. Acta del Simposio Internacional Celebrando en la Fundación Roman Areces. (Eds) Madrid. 2009; Capítulo 2: Detección precoz de sordera. Técnicas de cribado auditivo neonatal: Otoemisiones Acústicas (OEA). Germán Trinidad Ramos. 25-52.

  19. Jerger J, Martin J. Hemispheric asymmetry of the right ear advantage in dichotic listening. Hear Res. 2004; 198: 125-136.

  20. Gómez PV, Martínez CA, Ochoa BA, Vázquez C. Prevalencia de hipoacusia y factores de riesgo asociados en recién nacidos del estado de Colima, México. An Orl Mex. 2013; 58 (2): 61-66.

  21. Trinidad RG, Pando PJ, Vega CA et al. Detección precoz de hipoacusias en recién nacidos mediante otoemisiones acústicas evocadas transitorias. An Esp Pediatr 1999; 50: 166-171.

  22. Lino-González AL, Mercado-Hernández I, Castañeda-Maceda MV, Arch-Tirado E. La hipoacusia, educación y atención sanitaria a través de la Historia de México. Rev Mex AMCAOF. 2012; 1 (2): 138-144.

  23. Pat-Moeller M, Carr G, Seaver L, Stredler-Brown A, Holzinger D. Best practices in family-centered early intervention for children who are deaf or hard of hearing: An International Consensus Statement. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 2012; 18: 429-445.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com