ORIGINAL ARTICLE
AUDITORY BRAINSTEM RESPONSES IN HIGH-RISK NEONATES: 3 YEARS’ EXPERIENCE AT AN ITALIAN HOSPITAL
 
More details
Hide details
1
ENT Unit, Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza Hospital, San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Pietro Giordano   

Pietro Giordano, ENT Unit, Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza Hospital, San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy, e-mail: grdptr@unife.it
Publication date: 2014-06-30
 
J Hear Sci 2014;4(2):17–23
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
The World Health Organization (WHO) reported in 2013 that approximately 360 million people have disabling hearing loss, of which 32 million are children. A major consequence of hearing loss is a disability in communication: development of spoken language is often delayed in children with hearing loss, or absent in total deafness. Such children can benefit from a range of interventions such as hearing aids, cochlear implants, and educational and social support. Hearing screening can prevent the most severe consequences of hearing loss, but it is preferable first to consider populations with a high probability of developing hearing impairment. The present study assessed the incidence of hearing impairment through ABR in infants at high risk at Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza Hospital in southern Italy.

Material and Methods:
The paper reports the results of auditory brain stem response (ABR) testing over a period of 3 years on infants born with a history of infantile respiratory distress syndrome (IRDS), otoacoustic emission failure at hearing screening, low birth-weight (<1800 g), family history of deafness, hyperbiluribinemia, premature birth, congenital infection (cytomegalovirus), or craniofacial anomalies.

Results:
Of 549 infants tested, 469 (85.4%) showed normal hearing, 51 (9.3%) suffered mild hearing impairment, 6 (1.1%) had moderate hearing impairment, 8 (1.5%) had severe hearing loss, and 15 (2.7%) failed to show any response at maximum intensity levels in both ears. For the hearing loss categories, the most important risk factors were found to be (in order of importance): craniofacial malformation, CMV infection, and familial factors.

Conclusions:
ABR is an important clinical tool in the identification and quantification of hearing impairment. In neonatal screening it is preferable first to consider populations with a high probability of developing hearing losses.

 
REFERENCES (19)
1.
Van Dyke DC, Holte L. Communication disorders in children. Pediatric Annals, 2003; 32(7): 436.
 
2.
World Health Organization. WHO: Deafness and hearing loss, Fact sheet No. 300, updated February 2013.
 
3.
Bubbico L, Rosano A, Spagnolo A. Prevalence of prelingual deafness in Italy. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital, 2007; 27(1): 17–21.
 
4.
Mauk GW, White KR, Mortensen LB, Behrens TR. The effectiveness of screening programs based on high-risk characteristics in early identification of hearing impairment. Ear Hearing, 1991;12: 312–9.
 
5.
Gerber S. Review of a high-risk register for congenital or early onset deafness. Br J Audiol, 1990; 24: 347–56.
 
6.
Paludetti G, Conti G, Di Nardo W, De Corso E, Rolesi R, Picciotti PM et al. Infant hearing loss: from diagnosis to therapy. Official Report of XXI Conference of Italian Society of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital, 2012; 32(6): 347–70.
 
7.
Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. 1990 position statement. ASHA, 1991; 33: 3-6.
 
8.
Mauk GW, White KR, Mortensen LB, Beherens TR. The effectiveness of hearing programs based on high-risk characteristic in early intervention of hearing impairment. Ear Hear, 1991; 12: 312–9.
 
9.
Downs MP, Yoshingata-Itano C. The efficacy of early intervention for children with hearing impairment. Pediatr Clin North Am, 1999; 46(1): 79–87.
 
10.
Moeller MP. Early intervention and language development in children who are deaf and hard of hearing. Pediatrics, 2000; 106: 43–51.
 
11.
Molini E, Ricci G, Baroni S, Ciorba A, Bellocci A, Simoncelli C. Identifying congenital hearing impairment. Personal experience based on selective hearing screening. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital, 2004; 24: 109–16.
 
12.
Sampathkumar R, Ravikumar A, Kameswaran M, Mandke K, Ranjith R. Clinical application of a multimodal electrophysiological test battery to predict optimal behavioral levels in cochlear implantees. J Hear Sci, 2013; 3(4): OA31–48.
 
13.
Olusanya BO, Newton VE. Global burden of childhood hearing impairment and disease control priorities for developing countries. Lancet, 2007; 369: 1314–7.
 
14.
Johansson, B, Olsson L. Open access guide to audiology and hearing aids for otolaryngologists. Newborn and infant hearing screening. www.entdev.uct.ac.za/guides/op....
 
15.
van Straaten HLM, Groote ME, Oudesluys-Murphy AM. Evaluation of an automated auditory brainstem response infant hearing screening method in at risk neonates. Eur J Pediatr, 1996; 155: 702–5.
 
16.
Hatzopoulos S, Petruccelli J, Pelosi G, Martini A. An optimized neonatal TEOAE screening protocol based on linear stimulus sequences. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh), 1999; 119: 135–9.
 
17.
Hatzopoulos S, Petruccelli J, Ciorba A, Martini A. Optimizing otoacoustic emission protocols for a UNHS program Audiol Neurotol, 2009; 14(1): 7–16.
 
18.
Ciorba A, Hatzopoulos S, Busi M, Petruccelli J, Martini A. The universal newborn hearing screening program at the University Hospital of Ferrara: Focus on solutions and pitfalls. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 2008; 72(6): 807–16.
 
19.
Yousefi J, Ajalloueyan M, Amirsalari S, Hassanali Fard M. The specificity and sensitivity of transient otoacoustic emission in neonatal hearing screening compared with diagnostic test of auditory brain stem response in Tehran hospitals. Iranian J Pediatr, 2013; 23: 199–204.