Journals / Turkish archives of otorhinolaryngology / 2020 / Cilt: 58 - Sayı: 2

Auditory Brainstem Response Measurements in Newborns: Which Electrode Placement Is Better?

Pages
112–117
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)

It is concluded that in terms of practicality, the second montage is more advantageous and comfortable for both audiologists and newborns in single channel ABR systems.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the fastest and the most effective auditory brainstem response (ABR) measurement protocol for audiological diagnosis in babies up to three months of age.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: Twenty-two newborns (aged 0 to 63 days) who passed the newborn screening test in at least one ear were evaluated in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is concluded that in terms of practicality, the second montage is more advantageous and comfortable for both audiologists and newborns in single channel ABR systems.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the fastest and the most effective auditory brainstem response (ABR) measurement protocol for audiological diagnosis in babies up to three months of age. Methods: Twenty-two newborns (aged 0 to 63 days) who passed the newborn screening test in at least one ear were evaluated in the study. The ABR were recorded with click stimulus using two different electrode montages (1st montage: ipsilateral mastoid, contralateral mastoid, vertex. 2nd montage: nape of the neck, vertex, cheek). Latencies of waves I, III, V and duration of the test were recorded and analyzed. Results: Wave V latencies from both electrode montages were statistically shortest at the level of 70 dBnHL and longest at the level of 20 dBnHL (p=0.00). When the duration of the test at three different intensity levels were compared between the two electrode montages, only the test durations at 50 dBnHL were significantly different (p=0.017). The test times at 70 dBnHL in the first montage were observed to be significantly different in babies aged 1 to 30 days and aged 31 to 63 days (p=0.005). Conclusion: In protocols to evaluate the hearing of pediatric groups, it is very important to complete the ABR, which has significant value in early diagnosis, in a short time and reliably. It is concluded that in terms of practicality, the second montage is more advantageous and comfortable for both audiologists and newborns in single channel ABR systems.

🔖

Cite This Article

YİĞİT, Ö., BATUK, M. Ö., ÇINAR, B. Ç., YARALI, M., SENNAROĞLU, G., YILDIRIM, M. (2020). Auditory Brainstem Response Measurements in Newborns: Which Electrode Placement Is Better?. Turkish archives of otorhinolaryngology, Cilt: 58 - Sayı: 2, 112–117. https://ajindex.com/articles/403376

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (5)

  1. Hyde M. Principles and methods of population hearing screening in EHDI. Tharpe AM and Seewald R, editors. Comprehensive Handbook of Pediatric Audiology. San Diago: Plural Publishing Inc.; 2011. p. 283-336
  2. Hahn M, Lamprecht-Dinnesen A, Heinecke A, Hartmann S, Bülbül S, Schröder G, et al. Hearing screening in healthy newborns: feasibility of different methods with regard to test time. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 1999; 51: 83-9. [Crossref] 3. Thompson DC, McPhillips H, Davis RL, Lieu TA, Homer CJ, Helfand M. Universal newborn hearing screening: summary of evidence. JAMA 2001; 286: 2000-10. [Crossref] 4. Bolat H, Genç GA. Türkiye ulusal yenidoğan işitme taraması programı: tarihçesi ve prensipleri. Turkiye Klinikleri J E.N.T. 2012; 5:11-4
  3. Hall JW 3rd, Smith SD, Popelka GR. Newborn hearing screening with combined otoacoustic emissions and auditory brainstem responses. J Am Acad Audiol 2004; 15: 414-25. [Crossref] 6. Stewart DL, Mehl A, Hall JW 3rd, Thomson V, Carroll M, Hamlett J. Universal newborn hearing screening with automated auditory brainstem response: a multisite investigation. J Perinatol 2000; 20: 128-31. [Crossref] 7. Atcherson SR, Stoody TM, editors. Auditory electrophysiology: a clinical guide. New York: Thieme; 2012; 9-24
  4. Stevens J, Brennan S, Gratton D, Campbell M. ABR in newborns: effects of electrode configuration, stimulus rate, and EEG rejection levels on test efficiency. Int J Audiol 2013; 52: 706-12. [Crossref] 9. Dzulkarnain AAA, Noor Ibrahim SHM, Anuar NFA, Abdullah SA, Tengku Zam TZH, Rahmat S, et al. Influence of two-electrode montages on the level-specific (LS) CE-Chirp auditory brainstem response (ABR) at multiple intensity levels. Int J Audiol 2017; 56: 723-32. [Crossref] 10. Keesling DA, Parker JP, Sanchez JT. A comparison of commercially available auditory brainstem response stimuli at a neurodiagnostic intensity level. Audiol Res 2017; 7:161. [Crossref] 11. Öztürk B, Genç GA. Maturation of auditory brainstem responses in babies from birth to 6 months of age. Turkiye Klinikleri J Med Sci 2012; 32: 677-86. [Crossref] 12. Hall JW. New handbook of auditory evoked responses. 3rdh ed. Boston: Pearson; 2007; 71-211
  5. Dzulkarnain AA, Wilson WJ, Bradley AP, Petoe M. The effects of electrode montage on the amplitude of wave V in the auditory brainstem response to maximum length sequence stimuli. Audiol Neurotol 2008; 13: 7-12. [Crossref] 14. Dzulkarnain AAA, Buyong AS, Sulaiman NH. Intra-subject variability in the audito