International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology · 2015
Newborn hearing screening may predict Eustachian tube dysfunction.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chen Judy L
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: There is evidence for temporary hearing loss in neonates immediately after birth because of residual liquid derived from amniotic fluid in the ME cavity. This study examines whether a referred newborn hearing screen (NBHS) with subsequent testing confirming normal hearing can be attributed to persistence of middle ear effusion and predict poor Eustachian tube function manifested as recurrent otitis media or otitis media with effusion in the first year of life. The aims of the present study are to investigate the following: (1) whether infants who fail a neonatal hearing screen and subsequently pass are more likely to experience recurrent otitis media or otitis media with effusion, (2) whether these infants are more likely to obtain tympanostomy tubes.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study examined newborns who referred their NBHS and were subsequently noted to have normal hearing and a control group comprised of newborns who passed their NBHS. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed on the data collected as well as generation mean cumulative function plots.
RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of the case and control groups are not statistically significant with regards to gender, number of otitis media (OM), delivery mode, or the need for tubes in the follow up period. Within the refer group, those with bilateral refers were twice as likely to have otitis media than those with a unilateral refer (p=0.012). The logistic regression model for odds of subsequent otitis media was not statistically significant for bilateral or unilateral refer though the logistic regression model for odds of tubes demonstrated a statistically significant increased risk in bilateral refer patients. With time to event analysis, it was seen that bilateral refer patients are more likely to have OM than control and unilateral refer patients.
CONCLUSION: There is no difference in the incidence of subsequent OM between those infants who passed the NBHS versus those who initially referred and then passed subsequent audiology examination. However there was a difference in the number of otitis media between those infants who referred bilaterally versus those who referred unilaterally.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study examined newborns who referred their NBHS and were subsequently noted to have normal hearing and a control group comprised of newborns who passed their NBHS. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed on the data collected as well as generation mean cumulative function plots.
RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of the case and control groups are not statistically significant with regards to gender, number of otitis media (OM), delivery mode, or the need for tubes in the follow up period. Within the refer group, those with bilateral refers were twice as likely to have otitis media than those with a unilateral refer (p=0.012). The logistic regression model for odds of subsequent otitis media was not statistically significant for bilateral or unilateral refer though the logistic regression model for odds of tubes demonstrated a statistically significant increased risk in bilateral refer patients. With time to event analysis, it was seen that bilateral refer patients are more likely to have OM than control and unilateral refer patients.
CONCLUSION: There is no difference in the incidence of subsequent OM between those infants who passed the NBHS versus those who initially referred and then passed subsequent audiology examination. However there was a difference in the number of otitis media between those infants who referred bilaterally versus those who referred unilaterally.