SavedAdd your journal

Journals / ENT Updates / 2018 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of CE-Chirp ABR and Click ABR methods in patients with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss

Bilateral sensorinöral iflitme kay›pl› hastalarda CE-Chirp ABR ve Click ABR yöntemlerinin karfl›laflt›r›lmas›

Ferhan FERATLAR
Seval CEYLAN
Atilla GÜMÜŞGÜN
Pages
27–32
Publication Date
2022-10-12
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)

For both ears, mean CE-Chirp ABR threshold values were more favorable than those of Click ABR test [(60.15±10.34 vs. 62.27±9.93) dB nHL, p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: In this study, we aimed to compare ABR threshold values, V. wave latency times, amplitudes obtained using Click ABR and CEChirp ABR methods and procedural times of these tests in patients with bilateral hearing loss.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: A total of 19 adult male patients were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:For both ears, mean CE-Chirp ABR threshold values were more favorable than those of Click ABR test [(60.15±10.34 vs. 62.27±9.93) dB nHL, p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: In this study, we aimed to compare ABR threshold values, V. wave latency times, amplitudes obtained using Click ABR and CEChirp ABR methods and procedural times of these tests in patients with bilateral hearing loss. Methods: A total of 19 adult male patients were included in the study. ABR latency times with 10 dB decreases starting from 100 dB, V. wave latencies, V. wave amplitudes obtained using Click ABR and CE-Chirp ABR methods and procedural times were compared for both ears. Results: Procedural time for CE-Chirp ABR test was found to be shorter than that of Click ABR test (p=0.001). For both ears, mean CE-Chirp ABR threshold values were more favorable than those of Click ABR test [(60.15±10.34 vs. 62.27±9.93) dB nHL, p

Özet

Bu çal›flmada bilateral sensorinöral iflitme kayb› olan hastalarda Click ABR ve CE-Chirp ABR yöntemleri ile elde edilen ABR eflikleri, V. dalga latans bulgular›, amplitüd bulgular› ve test sürelerinin karfl›laflt›r›lmas› amaçlanm›flt›r. Yöntem: Bilateral sensorinöral iflitme kayb› bulunan 19 yetiflkin erkek hasta çal›flmaya dahil edildi. Click ABR ve CE-Chirp ABR yöntemleri ile her iki kulakta 100 dB’den bafllanarak 10 dB’lik düflüfllerle elde edilen ABR eflikleri, V. dalga latanslar›, V. dalga amplitüdleri ve test süreleri karfl›laflt›r›ld›. Bulgular: CE-Chirp ABR test süresi Click ABR test süresinden daha k›sa bulundu (p=0.001). Her iki kulak için ortalama CE-Chirp ABR eflikleri Click ABR efliklerinden daha iyi saptand› [(60.15±10.34 vs. 62.27±9.93) dB nHL, p

🔖

Cite This Article

FERATLAR, F., CEYLAN, S., GÜMÜŞGÜN, A. (2022). Comparison of CE-Chirp ABR and Click ABR methods in patients with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. ENT Updates, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1, 27–32. https://ajindex.com/articles/501414

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Hall JW. Overview of auditory neurophysiology: past, present and future. New handbook of auditory evoked responses. Boston, MA: Pearson Education; 2007.
  2. Burkard R, McNerney K. Introduction to auditory evoked potentials. In: Katz J, Burkard R, Medwetsky L, Hood L, editors. Handbook of clinical audiology. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA; Williams and Wilkins; 2009. p. 222–41.
  3. Dau T, Wagner O, Mellert V, Kollmeier B. Auditory brainstem responses with optimized chirp signals compensating basilarmembrane dispersion. J Acoust Soc Am 2000;107:1530–40.
  4. Shore SE, Nuttall AL. High synchrony compound action potentials evoked by rising frequency-swept tone bursts. J Acoust Soc Am 1985;78:1286–95.
  5. Prigge L, Weller S, Weatherby L. Auditory brainstem response and the travelling wave delay. Canadian Hearing Report 2012;7: 33–4.
  6. Pushpalatha ZV, Konadath S. Auditory brainstem responses for click and CE-chirp stimuli in individuals with and without occupational noise exposure. Noise Health 2016;18:260–5. Elberling C. Auditory brainstem responses to a chirp stimulus designed from derived-band latencies in normal-hearing subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 2008;124:3022–37. Yardımcı S. işitsel beyin sapı yanıtlarının uyarılmasında chirp sinyalinin yeri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Biyofizik Programı Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Ankara, 2006.
  7. Stuart A, Cobb KM. Effect of stimulus and number of sweeps on the neonate auditory brainstem response. Ear Hear 2014;35:585– 8. Young G, Keogh T, Glennon S. Review of newborn hearing screening regimes and associated screening devices. National Screening Unit Ministry of Health New Zeland 2014:40. Cebulla M, Lurz H, Shehata-Dieler W. Evaluation of waveform, latency and amplitude values of chirp ABR in newborns. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2014;78:631–6.
  8. Cho SW, Han KH, Jang HK, Chang SO, Jung H, Lee JH. Auditory brainstem responses to CE-Chirp(R) stimuli for normal ears and those with sensorineural hearing loss. Int J Audiol 2015; 54:700–4.
  9. Khorsand Sabet V, Mandavi-Zafarghandi ME, Safavi M, Sharifian M, Tabatabaee SM. Comparison of click and CE-Chirp-evoked human auditory brainstem responses: a preliminary study. [Article in Persian] Auditory and Vestibular Research 2014;23:69–76.
  10. Maloff ES, Hodd LJ. A comparison of auditory brain stem responses elicited by click and chirp stimuli in adults with normal hearing and sensory hearing loss. Ear Hear 2014;35:271–82.
  11. Hamada SM, Salwa M, Abdel Latif MD, Hoda IA. The verification of ABR response by