Journals / Kulak Burun Boğaz İhtisas Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 1

Türk nüfusunda presbiakuzinin odiogram konfigürasyonuna göre etyolojik sınıflandırılması

Etiological classification of presbycusis in Turkish population according to audiogram configuration

Pages
1–8
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

No difference was detected in terms of the prevalence of cochlear presbycusis in males and females (p=0.0001).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:ABSTRACT Objectives: This study aims to classify age related hearing loss in Turkish population according to Schuknecht audiometric configura- tions for presbycusis and investigate the most common etiologies.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Patients and Methods: A total of 1,134 patients (568 males, 566 females; mean age 70.5±7.7 years; range 55 to 80 years) with age related hearing loss were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:No difference was detected in terms of the prevalence of cochlear presbycusis in males and females (p=0.0001).
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objectives: This study aims to classify age related hearing loss in Turkish population according to Schuknecht audiometric configura- tions for presbycusis and investigate the most common etiologies. Patients and Methods: A total of 1,134 patients (568 males, 566 females; mean age 70.5±7.7 years; range 55 to 80 years) with age related hearing loss were included in the study. Audiograms of patients were classified into three categories: high frequency steeply sloping (HFSS), flat, and high frequency gently sloping (HFGS). Speech discrimination scores were evaluated and compared. Results: In the study population, HFSS audiogram configuration was the most frequently observed (48.5%), followed by HFGS con- figuration (26.9%), and flat configuration (24.5%), respectively. While HFSS audiogram configuration was statistically significantly more common in males, flat audiogram configuration was statistically significantly more common in females (p=0.0001). HFSS group mean air conduction threshold were statistically significantly higher than flat and HFGS groups (p=0.0001). No statistically significantly difference was detected in terms of speech discrimination scores between three groups (p=0.796). Conclusion: Results of this study suggest that, in Turkish population, while sensory presbycusis is more common in males, strial presbycusis is more common in females. No difference was detected in terms of the prevalence of cochlear presbycusis in males and females (p=0.0001).

Özet

ÖZ Amaç: Bu çalışmada Türk nüfusunda yaşa bağlı işitme kaybı presbiakuzi için Schuknecht odiometrik konfigürasyonlarına göre sınıflandırıldı ve en sık görülen etyolojiler araştırıldı. Hastalar ve Yöntemler: Çalışmaya yaşa bağlı işitme kaybı olan 1134 hasta (568 erkek, 566 kadın; ort. yaş 70.5±7.7 yıl; dağılım 55-80 yıl) dahil edildi. Hastaların odyogramları üç kategoriye ayrıldı: yüksek frekanslı ani eğimli (YFAE), düz ve yüksek frekanslı hafif eğimli (YFHE). Konuşmayı ayırt etme puanları değerlendirildi ve karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: Çalışma nüfusunda YFAE odyogram konfigürasyonu en sık görüldü (%48.5), bunu sırasıyla YFHE (%26.9) ve düz konfigürasyon (%24.5) izledi. Yüksek frekanslı hafif eğimli odyogram konfigürasyonu erkeklerde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı derecede daha yaygınken düz odyogram konfigürasyonu kadınlarda istatistiksel olarak anlamlı derecede daha yaygındı (p=0.0001). YFAE grubu ortalama hava yolu eşikleri düz ve YFHE gruplarından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı derecede yüksek idi (p=0.0001). Konuşmayı ayırt etme skorları açısından üç grup arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık bulunmadı (p=0.796). Sonuç: Bu çalışmanın bulgularına göre, Türk nüfusunda sensori presbiakuzi erkeklerde daha yaygın iken strial presbiakuzi kadınlarda daha yaygındır. Erkeklerde ve kadınlarda koklear presbiakuzi görülme sıklığı açısından farklılık bulunmadı (p=0.0001). Anahtar Sözcükler:

🔖

Cite This Article

KAYA, K. H., KARAMAN, A. K., SAYIN, İ., GÜNEŞ, S., CANPOLAT, S., ŞİMŞEK, B., KAYHAN, F. T. (2015). Türk nüfusunda presbiakuzinin odiogram konfigürasyonuna göre etyolojik sınıflandırılması. Kulak Burun Boğaz İhtisas Dergisi, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 1, 1–8. https://ajindex.com/articles/342442

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Layer LV. Cump GV. Age-releated hearing impairment: ensemble playing of environmental and genetic factors. In: Alessandro Martini, Dafydd Stephens, Andrew P, editors. Genes, Hearing, and Deafness: From Molecular Biology to Clinical Practice. London: Informa UK Ltd. 2007. p. 79-90
  2. Sprinzl GM, Riechelmann H. Current trends in treating hearing loss in elderly people: a review of the technology and treatment options - a mini-review. Gerontology 2010;56:351-8
  3. Monzani D, Galeazzi GM, Genovese E, Marrara A, Martini A. Psychological profile and social behaviour of working adults with mild or moderate hearing lossActa Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2008;28:61-6
  4. Roth TN, Hanebuth D, Probst R. Prevalence of age- related hearing loss in Europe: a review Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2011;268:1101-7
  5. Nelson EG, Hinojosa R. Presbycusis: a human temporal bone study of individuals with downward sloping audiometric patterns of hearing loss and review of the literature. Laryngoscope 2006;116:1-12
  6. Frisina RD, Walton JP. Age-related structural and functional changes in the cochlear nucleus. Hear Res 2006;216-217:216-23
  7. CORSO JF. Age and sex differences in pure-tone thresholds. Survey of hearing levels from 18 to 65 years. Arch Otolaryngol 1963;77:385-405
  8. Gates GA, Mills JH. Presbycusis. Lancet 2005;366:1111-20
  9. Fieuws S, Verbeke G. Pairwise fitting of mixed models for the joint modeling of multivariate longitudinal profiles. Biometrics 2006;62:424-31
  10. Schuknecht HF. Further observations on the pathology of presbycusis. Arch Otolaryngol 1964;80:369-82
  11. Schuknecht HF, Gacek MR. Cochlear pathology in presbycusis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1993;102:1-16
  12. Gates GA, Couropmitree NN, Myers RH. Genetic associations in age-related hearing thresholds. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;125:654-9
  13. Salvi RJ, Ding D, Eddins AC, Mc Fadden SL, Henderson D. Age, noise, and ototoxic agents. In: Hof PR, Mobbs CV, editors. Functional Neurobiology of Aging. Chapter 38. San Diego: Academic Press; 2001. p. 549-63
  14. Schuknecht H. Pathology of the Ear. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1974
  15. Demeester K, van Wieringen A, Hendrickx JJ, Topsakal V, Fransen E, van Laer L, et al. Audiometric shape and presbycusis. Int J Audiol 2009;48:222-32
  16. Harrell, RW. Puretone evaluation. In: Katz, J, editor. Handbook of Clinical Audiology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002. p. 71-87
  17. Kılıncarslan A. Türk Dili için Geliştirilmiş Fonetik Dengeli T