Middle ear muscle reflex measurement in neonates: Comparison between 1000 Hz and 226 Hz probe tones

Carregando...
Imagem de Miniatura
Citações na Scopus
1
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2015
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
Citação
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY, v.79, n.9, p.1510-1515, 2015
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Introduction: Middle ear muscle reflex (MEMR) evaluation assists in diagnosing hearing problems because normal responses depend on preconditions of a healthy auditory system. Studies in neonates recording the acoustic reflex with 226 Hz probes have described high rates of absence. Other studies using a high frequency probe have found higher rates of presence in normal neonates. However, few studies have compared results between low and high frequency probes in the same newborns. Objective: To comparatively assess the ipsilateral acoustic reflex recorded by 226 Hz and 1000 Hz probes in newborns. Method: A total of 77 newborns, with the presence of transient otoacoustic emissions, underwent tympanometry, wideband acoustic immittance, and ipsilateral reflex investigations with 226 Hz and 1000 Hz tone probes. Results: The acoustic reflex was activated at a much lower intensity with all activating stimuli using the 1000 Hz probe compared with the values of the 226 Hz probe. There was a higher incidence of ipsilateral acoustic reflexes recorded by the 1000 Hz tone probe compared to the 226 Hz tone probe. There was no correlation between the acoustic reflex thresholds and otoacoustic emissions. Conclusion: In newborns, the acoustic reflex measurements obtained with the 1000 Hz probe showed advantages over the 226 Hz probe.
Palavras-chave
Reflex, Acoustic, Infant, Newborn, Acoustic impedance tests, Hearing
Referências
  1. Busa J, 2007, PEDIATRICS, V120, P898, DOI 10.1542/peds.2007-2333
  2. Berlin CI, 2010, INT J AUDIOL, V49, P30, DOI 10.3109/14992020903160892
  3. Feeney M Patrick, 2005, J Am Acad Audiol, V16, P278
  4. Hood LJ, 1999, LARYNGOSCOPE, V109, P1745, DOI 10.1097/00005537-199911000-00004
  5. Hunter LL, 1999, EAR HEARING, V20, P506, DOI 10.1097/00003446-199912000-00006
  6. Keefe DH, 2010, HEARING RES, V263, P52, DOI 10.1016/j.heares.2009.09.008
  7. Kei J, 2012, J AM ACAD AUDIOL, V23, P46, DOI 10.3766/jaaa.23.1.5
  8. KEITH RW, 1975, ARCH OTOLARYNGOL, V101, P376
  9. LUTMAN ME, 1980, SCAND AUDIOL, V9, P33, DOI 10.3109/01050398009076332
  10. MARGOLIS RH, 1993, EAR HEARING, V14, P3, DOI 10.1097/00003446-199302000-00002
  11. Mazlan R, 2007, INT J AUDIOL, V46, P711, DOI 10.1080/14992020701525858
  12. Mazlan R, 2010, INT J AUDIOL, V49, P815, DOI 10.3109/14992027.2010.493182
  13. Mazlan R, 2009, EAR HEARING, V30, P295, DOI 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31819c3ea0
  14. MCMILLAN PM, 1985, EAR HEARING, V6, P320, DOI 10.1097/00003446-198511000-00008
  15. Nikolopoulos TP, 2015, INT J PEDIATR OTORHI, V79, P635, DOI 10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.02.010
  16. Schairer KS, 2013, EAR HEARING, V34, pS43, DOI 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31829c70d9
  17. Schairer KS, 2007, J ACOUST SOC AM, V121, P3607, DOI 10.1121/1.2722213
  18. SILMAN S, 1987, Seminars in Hearing, V8, P379, DOI 10.1055/s-0028-1091385
  19. SPRAGUE BH, 1985, J SPEECH HEAR RES, V28, P265
  20. Swanepoel DW, 2007, ACTA OTO-LARYNGOL, V127, P49, DOI 10.1080/00016480600740563
  21. WEATHERBY LA, 1980, SCAND AUDIOL, V9, P103, DOI 10.3109/01050398009076343
  22. Williams TR, 2015, MMWR-MORBID MORTAL W, V64, P351