Journals / ENT Updates / 2018 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1
Comparison of CE-Chirp ABR and Click ABR methods in patients with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss
- Journal
- ENT Updates
- Pages
- 27–32
- DOI
- —
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