127
Views
29
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Article

A comparison of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions and automated auditory brainstem responses for pre-discharge neonatal hearing screening: Comparación de los emisiones otoacústicas evocadas portransitorios y los potenciales evocados automatizados de tallo cerebral en la identificación auditiva neonatal de pre-egreso hospitalario

, &
Pages 443-447 | Received 21 May 2002, Accepted 31 Oct 2002, Published online: 07 Jul 2009
 

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare two hearing-screening methods in well newborn infants within the postnatal ward environment prior to discharge. Eighty-one newborn infants underwent one-step hearing screening by measurement of automated auditory brainstem responses (aABRs), using the ALGO-3 screener. These were compared with a further cohort of 81 neonates who underwent two-step screening using transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) followed by aABR. The pass rate was 78/81 (96.3%) for the one-step screen, 74/81 (91.4%) for the two-step screen, and 54/81 (66.7%) for TEOAE alone. There was no significant difference between cohorts in time required to complete the screening protocol. We conclude that pre-discharge hearing screening of newborn infants on the postnatal ward is feasible and acceptable. Use of TEOAE alone for pre-discharge screening is associated with an excessively high false-positive rate. At our institution, one-step screening resulted in a lower referral rate compared with a two-step approach. The performance of aABR screening may be affected by prior TEOAE screening.

Sumario

El objetivo de este esludio fue comparar dos métodos de identificación auditiva en neonatos sanos, en el cunero. antes de su egrcso. A 81 neonatos se les realizó una prueba de identificación mediante la medición de potenciales evocados automatizados dc tallo cerebral (aABRs), utihzando el equipo ALGO-3. Estos resultados se eompararon con otra cohorle de 81 neonatos a los que se les efectuaron tanto emisiones otacústicas evocadas por transitorios (TEOAEs) como aABR. El critcrio de respucsta positiva fue 78/81 (96.3%) para la prueba única, 74/81 (91.4%) para las pruebas consecutivas y 54/81 (66.7%) para las TEOAE solas. No hubo diferencia significativa entre cohortes en el tiempo requerido para completar el protocolo de identificación. Concluimos que la identificación auditiva pre-egreso en los neonatos es factible y aceptable. El uso único de TEOAE en la identificatión pre-egreso se asocia a un alto grado de falsos positivos. En nuestra institución, la identificación en un paso resultó en un nivel de referenda más bajo, comparado con el protoeolo en dos pasos. Los resultados de los aABR pucden verse afectados por las pruebas previas con TEOAE.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.