正常出生新生儿瞬态诱发耳声发射与畸变产物耳声发射听力筛查结果比较

目的 探讨瞬态诱发耳声发射(transient evoked otoacoustic emissions,TEOAE)和畸变产物耳声发射(distortion products otoacoustic emissions,DPOAE)用于新生儿听力筛查特点,为正常出生新生儿听力筛查方法的选择提供参考.方法 于出生后48~72小时,对1 062例正常出生的新生儿分别使用TEOAE和DPOAE进行听力初筛,其中135例未通过初筛者,在42天龄左右,同时进行TEOAE和DPOAE复筛;复筛未通过者3月龄左右进行诊断型听性脑干反应测试. 结果 1 062例新生儿中TEOAE初筛未通过率为11.02%(117/1 062),DPOAE未通过率为13.65%(145/1 062);135例进行了复筛,TEOAE和DPOAE未通过率分别为17.78%(24/135)和20.74%(28/135),DPOAE初、复筛未通过率均高于TEOAE,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.001);TEOAE和DPOAE在初筛和复筛中的一致率分别为96.04%和95.56%,kappa值分别为0.817和0.857.在初筛中TEOAE每耳的平均测试时间为24±25 s,DPOAE为40±34 s;在复筛中TEOAE为52±41 s,DPOAE为73±62 s,配对样本t检验显示两种方法的测试时间差异有统计学意义(P=0.000).复筛的135例中,共有7例(10耳)最终被诊断为不同程度的传导性听力损失(9耳)及感音神经性听力损失(1耳),这10耳TEOAE和DPOAE初、复筛均未通过. 结论 作为正常出生新生儿的听力筛查方法,TEOAE较DPOAE未通过率低,耗时少;作为新生儿听力筛查工具,TEOAE可能比DPOAE有优势.

Comparison of Transient Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions and Distortion Products Otoacoustic Emissions as the Hearing Screening Methods in the Same Population of Normal Newborns

Objective To compare the results of TEOAE and DPOAE in the same population of normal newborns, to provide information on choosing appropriate screening tools.Methods A two-steps protocol was taken with the first screening during the first 48 to 72 hours of birth and rescreened from one to two months old if the newborns failed the first screening.For each step of screening, TEOAE and DPOAE were performed simultaneously using AccuScreen hearing screening instrument (Madsen-GN Otometrics, Taastrup, Denmark).A total of 1 062 normal newborns (F/M=508/554) delivered in Peking Union Medical College Hospital were enrolled in this research for the first screening.Infants who failed either TEOAE or DPOAE screening in the first screening were referred to a second screening.Among them, 135 performed both DPOAE and TEOAE in the second step.The newborns who failed the second screening would receive ABR when they were 3 months old.Results In the first screening,the failure rate for TEOAE was 11.0% (117/1 062) and 13.7% (145/1 062) for DPOAE.In the second screening step, the failure rates were 17.8% (24/135) and 20.7% (28/135) for TEOAE and DPOAE, respectively.Chi-square and Fisher's test showed that the failure rates of DPOAE were significant higher than TEOAE for both steps (P<0.001).The agreements between TEOAE and DPOAE were 96.0% and 95.6% for the first and second steps respectively, and the kappa values were 0.817 and 0.857.As to the average time taken to accomplish the screening for one ear, TEOAE was 24±25 s and DPOAE was 40±34 s during the first screening;in the rescreening, TEOAE was 52±41 s and DPOAE was 73±62 s.Paired-t tests showed that the differences between DPOAE and TEOAE testing time were statistically significant (P=0.000) in both screening steps.Finally, 7 newborns (10 ears) were diagnosed conductive hearing loss(except 1 ear was sensorineural hearing loss).Conclusion As a screening tool, TEOAE got lower refer rates and took less time than DPOAE implicating TEOAE a better screening tool for normal neonates.