Konya Kulu Devlet Hastanesi 2 Yıllık Yenidoğan İşitme Taraması Sonuçlarımız

Amaç: İşitme kaybı yenidoğanlarda en sık görülen konjenital anomalilerden biridir. Yaşamın ilk yılında işitsel stimu- lusun olması lisan gelişimi ve kognitif fonksiyonlar açısından gerekli olup erken tanı ve erken amplifikasyon büyükönem arz etmektedir. Otoakustik emisyon ölçümleri dünyada en sık kullanılan metoddur. Bu makalede işitme kaybısonuçlarımızın literatür ile karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Yöntem ve Gereçler : Çalışmamızda Şubat 2010 ile Aralık 2012 tarihleri arasındaki Transient Evoked OtoakustikEmisyon (TEOAE) ile yapılan işitme tarama sonuçlarımızı değerlendirdik. 605 yenidoğan, doğumlarından itibaren1 ile 3. gün TEOAE ile tarandı. İlk testte kaldı olarak yorumlanan bebekler 14 gün sonra kontrole çağrılarak testtenönce dış kulak yolunda debris, buşon veya orta kulak iltihabı ve efüzyonu açısından muayene edilerek ikinci kezTEOAE testi uygulandı. Risk faktörü olanlar işitme tarama sonuçlarına bakılmaksızın 3. Basamak sağlık merkezineyönlendirildi. Bulgular: Şubat 2010 ile Aralık 2012 tarihleri arasında doğan 605 bebeğin işitme tarama sonuçları değerlendirildi. 605bebeğin 21i ilk testten geçemedi (%3,4). İkinci kez test yapılan bebeklerden 5i (%0,8) 3. basamak sağlık merkezinesevk edildi. Sevk edilen bebeklerin 3ü ABR testinden kaldı ve 3.basamak sağlık merkezince takibe alındı (%0,4). Sonuç: İşitme kayıpları yenidoğanlarda sosyal, duygusal ve zihinsel gelişimi olumsuz yönde etkilemektedir. İşitmekaybının erken tanı alması konuşma ve dil gelişimi için çok önemlidir.1 yaş civarında kohlear implant uygulananhastalar işitsel yollarında nöral plastisite devam ettiği için normal gelişimi yakalayabilmektedir. Erken tanı için tümbireylerin yenidoğan işitme taramalarının yapılması gerekmektedir

Newborn Hearing Screening Results For The Last Two Years at Konya Kulu State Hotpital

Objective: Hearingloss is one of themostcommoncongenitalanomalies in humans. Auditory stimulation in the firstyear of life is necessary for language development an d cognitive functions so tha tearly amplification and early di- agnosis is very important. Otoacoustic emission measurement is currently most common used method in world. Wepurpose to compare our results with the literature. Materials and Methods: In ourstudy, we assessed the results of newborn hearing screnning with Transient EvokedOtoacustic Emission (TEOAE) between February 2010 and December 2012. 605 newborns were screened in 1 to 3days after birth by the method of TEOAE. Infants who fail to pass the test called again after 14 days and were exam- ined for debris, cerumen in external auditory canal or middle ear inflammation, effusion and screned with TEOAE.The infants with risk factors were referred to tertiary health center regardless of test results. Results: The hearing screening results of 605 infants born between february 2010 and december 2012 were assessed. 21 (%3,4) of 605 infants did not pass the first test. Five (% 0,8) infants who fail to pass the second test were referredto tertiary health center after second test. Three of them did not pass the ABR test (%0,4) and followed up by tertiaryhealth center.The infants at risk of hearing loss were referred to tertiary health center. Conclusion: Hearing loss has a negative affect on social, emotional and intellectual development of newborns. Earlydiagnosis of hearnig loss is very important for speech and language development. Patients who underwent cochlearimplantation at the age of one can reach to a condition of normal development due to neuralplasticity. We recommend, using newborn hearing screening to all individuals for early diagnosis.

PDF

___

1. Hahn M, Lamprecht-Dinnesen A, Heinecke A et al. Hearing scre- ening in healthy newborns: feasibility of different methods with regard to test time. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 1999; 51: 83-89.
2. Thompson DC, McPhillips H, Davis RL et al. Universal newborn hearing screening: summary of evidence. Jama 2001; 286: 2000- 2010.
3. Helfand M, Thompson DC, Davis R. SystematicEvidenceRe- viewNumber 5. Oregon Health&ScienceUniversityEvidence- basedPractice Center; Rockville: 2001. NewbornHearingScreening.
4. Year 2000 position statement: principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Joint Committee on Infant Hearing, American Academy of Audiology, American Aca- demy of Pediatrics, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, and Directors of Speech and Hearing Programs in State Health and Welfare Agencies. Pediatrics 2000; 106: 798-817.
5. Thornton AR, Kimm L, Kennedy CR. Methodological factors in- volved in neonatal screening using transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions and automated auditory brainstem response testing. Hear Res 2003; 182: 65-76.
6. Kemp DT, Ryan S, Bray P. A guide to the effective use of otoaco- ustic emissions. Ear Hear 1990; 11: 93-105.
7. Hatzopoulos S, Pelosi G, Petruccelli J et al. Efficient otoacoustic emission protocols employed in a hospital-based neonatal scree- ning program. Acta Otolaryngol 2001; 121: 269-273.
8. Korres S, Nikolopoulos TP, Peraki EE et al. Outcomes and efficacy of newborn hearing screening: strengths and weaknesses (success or failure?). Laryngoscope 2008; 118: 1253-1256.
9. Levi H, Adelman C, Geal-Dor M, et al. Transientevokedotoacous- ticemissions in newborns in thefirst 48 hoursafterbirth. Audiology 1997; 36: 181-186
10. Johnson JL, White KR, Widen JE et al. A multicenter evaluation of how many infants with permanent hearing loss pass a two-stage oto- acoustic emissions/automated auditory brainstem response newborn hearing screening protocol. Pediatrics 2005; 116: 663-672.
11. Adachi N, Ito K, Sakata H, Yamasoba T. Etiology and one-year follow-up results of hearing loss identified by screening of newborn hearing in Japan. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010; 143: 97-100.
12. Casselbrant ML, Brostoff LM, Cantekin EI et al. Otitis media with effusion in preschool children. Laryngoscope 1985; 95: 428-436.
13. Lim HW, Kim EA, Chung JW. Audiological Follow-up Results after Newborn Hearing Screening Program. Clin Exp Otorhino- laryngol 2012; 5: 57-61.
14. Talero-Gutierrez C, Carvajalino-Monje I, Samper BS, Ibanez-Pi- nilla M. Delayed auditory pathway maturation in the differential diagnosis of hypoacusis in young children. Int J Pediatr Otorhino- laryngol 2008; 72: 519-527.
15. Shahnaz N, Miranda T, Polka L. Multifrequency tympanometry in neonatal intensive care unit and well babies. J Am Acad Audiol 2008; 19: 392-418.
16. Ohl C, Dornier L, Czajka C, Chobaut JC, Tavernier L. Newborn- hearingscreening on infants at risk. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2009;73:1691-5.
17. Genç AG, Basar F, Kayıkçı ME, ve ark. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Ye- nidoganİsitme Taraması Bulguları. Çocuk Saglıgı ve Hastalıkları Dergisi. 2005;48:119-124.
18. ÖvetG, Işık BalcıY, Canural R,Yenidoğan İşitme Taraması Sonuç- larımız, Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, 2010, Cilt 11, Sayı 1, 27-29.
19. Özkurt E, Özdoğan F, YenidoğanlardaOtoakustik Emisyon İşitme Taraması Sonuçlarımız; KBB-Forum 2012;11(2):23-25.
20. Yazgan H, Keleş E, Yenidoğan İşitme Taramasında Dört Yıllık So- nuçlarımız Van Tıp Dergisi: 2012:19 (3): 112-115.
21. Madell JR, Flexer C. Pediatric Audiology Diagnosis Technology and Management. New-York: Thieme 2008;14-22. 22. Kalatzis V, Petit C. The fundamental and medical impacts of recent progress in research on hereditary hearing loss. Hum Mol Genet 1998; 7: 1589-1597.
23. Declau F, Boudewyns A, Van den Ende J et al. Etiologic and audio- logic evaluations after universal neonatal hearing screening: analy- sis of 170 referred neonates. Pediatrics 2008; 121: 1119-1126.
24. Ant A, Karamert R, Bayazıt Y.A. İşitme Kayıplarının Genetik Yonu ve TurkiyedekiGorunumu. Turkiye Klinikleri J E.N.T. Spe- cial Topics 2012; 5: 15-20.
25. Baroch KA. Universal newborn hearing screening: fine-tuning the process. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003; 11: 424-427.
26. Sloutsky VM, Napolitano AC. Is a picture worth a thousand words? Preference for auditory modality in young children. Child Dev 2003; 74: 822-833.
27. Kajikawa S, Fais L, Mugitani R et al. Cross-language sensitivity to phonotactic patterns in infants. J Acoust Soc Am 2006; 120: 2278-2284.
28. Kretzmer EA, Meltzer NE, Haenggeli CA, Ryugo DK. An animal model for cochlear implants. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004; 130: 499-508.
29. Sharma A, Dorman MF, Kral A. The influence of a sensitive period on central auditory development in children with unilateral and bilateral cochlear implants. Hear Res 2005; 203: 134-143.
30. Svirsky MA, et al. Development of languageandspeechpercepti- on in congenitally, profoundlydeafchildren as a function of age at cochlearimplantation. Audiol. Neurootol. 2004;9:224233.
31. McConkeyRobbins A, et al. Effect of age at cochlearimplantation on auditoryskilldevelopment in infantsandtoddlers. Arch. Otolary- ngol. HeadNeckSurg. 2004;130:570574.
32. Kral A, Sharma A.Developmentalneuroplasticityaftercochlearimpl antation. Trends Neurosci. 2012 Feb;35(2):111-22.
33. Kemp DT, Ryan S, Bray P.A guide to the effective use of otoaco- ustic emissions.EarHear. 1990 Apr;11(2):93-105.
34. 34. Prieve BA, Stevens F. The New York State universal newborn hearing screening demonstration project: introduction and overvi- ew. Ear Hear 2000; 21: 85-91.
35. Fitzpatrick EM, Durieux-Smith A, Whittingham J. Clinical practi- ce for children with mild bilateral and unilateral hearing loss. Ear Hear 2010; 31: 392-400.
36. Tharpe AM. Unilateral and mild bilateral hearing loss in children: past and current perspectives. Trends Amplif 2008; 12: 7-15.