864例新生儿听力筛查结果分析

目的 通过新生儿听力筛查,初步了解先天性听力障碍发病的相关高危因素,为新生儿期、婴幼儿期保健及早期干预治疗提供依据.方法 对西安市兵器工业521医院2014年1月至2015年6月出生的864例新生儿采用瞬态诱发性耳声发射(TEOAE)进行听力筛查,初筛于生后2~7d完成,初筛未通过者于生后42d复筛,复筛未通过者于出生后3个月行听性脑干反应、声导抗等检查,并对外耳道发育畸形患儿行颞骨CT检查.结果 在864例(1727耳)新生儿中,初筛通过785例,初筛通过率90.86%,初筛未通过79例(157耳),其中,75例(149耳)接受复筛,复筛率为94.90%,复筛通过71例(142耳),复筛未通过4例(7耳),复筛通过率95.30%,总通过率99.07%.最终4例确诊为不同程度的先天性听力缺失,确诊听力缺陷率0.46%.听力筛查结果与性别的差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.43,P=0.5),与分娩方式的差异无统计学意义(χ2=2.55,P=0.1),与高危因素的差异有统计学意义(χ2=7.72,P=0.005).结论 在母婴同室与新生儿病区顺利开展听力筛查,对及早发现听力缺陷、加强高危儿的监测工作,具有非常重要的意义.     

攀枝花地区180例新生儿听力筛查结果分析

目的 分析攀枝花地区180例新生儿听力筛查结果.方法 回顾性分析在攀枝花市中心医院自2015年6月至2016年6月出生的180例新生儿的听力筛查资料,待新生儿出生后的3至7d进行畸变产物耳声发射技术(DPOAE)初次筛查,待出生42d后再次进行DPOAE与自动听性脑干反应(AABR)的复筛,筛查结果有1项以上未通过者给予听力学检查诊断(后续确诊,与此项研究无关).结果 初筛组新生儿共180例,均接受了DPOAE听力检查,其初筛通过者164例,占91.11%,未通过者16例,占8.89%;复筛组新生儿158例,复筛率为87.78%,其中初筛通过者行复筛未通过率为4.17%,初筛未通过者行复筛也未通过率为14.29%,初筛和复筛均未通过者合计8例,占5.06%.攀枝花地区180例新生儿听力筛查结果显示,听力缺失的检出率为1.67%(3/180).结论 听力缺失的患儿需给予早期有效的干预治疗,从而达到促进新生儿语言发育的目的.     

Evaluation and Treatment of Acute and Subacute Hearing Loss: A Review of Pharmacotherapy

Among various forms of hearing loss, there are acute (within 72 hrs) or subacute (weeks to months) presentations that may be reversible with early pharmacological intervention. The workup of a patient presenting with hypoacusia includes the usual history and physical examination in conjunction with an audiometric assessment in order to categorize the hearing loss as conductive, sensorineural, or mixed. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss and autoimmune inner ear disease are acute and subacute forms of sensorineural hypoacusia most likely to be reversed with prompt pharmacological intervention. Systemic or local corticosteroid therapy has the most evidence of benefit in patients with sudden sensorineural hypoacusia and is the best available first line therapy noted in clinical practice guidelines. Alternative immunosuppressant therapies have not been well studied, and many have serious toxicities that further complicate the benefit‐risk assessment. There are no randomized comparisons of corticosteroid dosing regimens that evaluated clinically important outcomes, so expert opinion must serve as the basis for dosing recommendations. Clinicians need to involve patients with hypoacusia in the shared decision‐making process, since partial or complete reversal of hearing loss can have substantial quality‐of‐life implications for affected patients.     

Sudden hearing loss due to oxaliplatin use in a patient with colon cancer

Oxaliplatin is used to treat advanced colorectal cancer. Platinum-containing chemotherapeutic agents are known to be ototoxic. However, ototoxicity is rare with newer generation platinum-derived agents, such as oxaliplatin. This case report presents a rare case of sudden unilateral sensorineural hearing loss following intravenous (IV) infusion of oxaliplatin in a 64-year-old woman with advanced colon cancer. The hearing loss was severe and did not respond to treatment. To the best of our knowledge, this is the fifth reported case of oxaliplatin ototoxicity. Although oxaliplatin ototoxicity is rare, physicians must be aware of this important adverse effect, and an audiometric evaluation must be performed when necessary. Patients treated with oxaliplatin should be followed closely for early signs and symptoms of hearing loss, and if hearing loss is detected, treatment should be stopped immediately.     

Ototoxicity and cancer therapy

Ototoxicity is a well‐established toxicity associated with a subgroup of antineoplastic therapies that includes platinum chemotherapy, radiation or surgery involving the ear and auditory nerve, and supportive care agents such as aminoglycoside antibiotics and loop diuretics. The reported prevalence of ototoxicity in patients who have received potentially ototoxic therapy ranges from 4% to 90% depending on factors such as age of the patient population, agent(s) used, cumulative dose, and administration techniques. The impact of ototoxicity on subsequent health‐related and psychosocial outcomes in these patients can be substantial, and the burden of morbidity related to ototoxic agents is particularly high in very young children. Considerable interindividual variability in the prevalence and severity of ototoxicity has been observed among patients receiving similar treatment, suggesting genetic susceptibility as a risk factor. The development and testing of otoprotective agents is ongoing; however, to the author's knowledge, no US Food and Drug Administration‐approved otoprotectants are currently available. Prospective monitoring for ototoxicity allows for comparison of auditory outcomes across clinical trials, as well as for early detection, potential alterations in therapy, and auditory intervention and rehabilitation to ameliorate the adverse consequences of hearing loss. Cancer 2016;122:1647‐58 . © 2016 American Cancer Society.     

Patient decision aids for prevention and treatment of cancer diseases: are they really personalised tools?

This article provides an analysis of cancer decision aids (DAs), instruments developed to support oncologic patients facing tough screening or treatment decisions, with a particular attention to their level of personalisation. As discussed in our previous works, we argue that the personalisation of medicine should regard not only the genetic and clinical aspects of diseases but also the different cognitive, psychological and social factors involved in clinical choices. According to this vision, we analysed the existing randomised controlled studies on cancer DAs concluding that only few of them take into account individual variables such as cultural level, individual risk attitudes, personal beliefs, and emotional state that are crucial to determine people's reactions and health‐related choices. For these reasons, although quality standards have been published for these interventions, we suggest the need for further research in order to make these instruments more efficient in transforming and improving the actual clinical practice, improving patient empowerment and participation in health‐related decisions.     

The endocochlear potential depends on two K+ diffusion potentials and an electrical barrier in the stria vascularis of the inner ear

An endocochlear potential (EP) of +80 mV is essential for audition. Although the regulation of K(+) concentration ([K(+)]) in various compartments of the cochlear stria vascularis seems crucial for the formation of the EP, the mechanism remains uncertain. We have used multibarreled electrodes to measure the potential, [K(+)], and input resistance in each compartment of the stria vascularis. The stria faces two fluids, perilymph and endolymph, and contains an extracelluar compartment, the intrastrial space (IS), surrounded by two epithelial layers, the marginal cell (MC) layer and that composed of intermediate and basal cells. Fluid in the IS exhibits a low [K(+)] and a positive potential, called the intrastrial potential (ISP). We found that the input resistance of the IS was high, indicating this space is electrically isolated from the neighboring extracellular fluids. This arrangement is indispensable for maintaining positive ISP. Inhibiting the K(+) transporters of the stria by anoxia, ouabain, or bumetanide caused the [K(+)] of the IS to increase and the intracellular [K(+)] of MCs to decrease, reducing both the ISP and the EP. Calculations indicate that the ISP represents the K(+) diffusion potential across the apical membranes of intermediate cells through Ba(2+)-sensitive K(+) channels. The K(+) diffusion potential across the apical membranes of MCs also contributes to the EP. Because the EP depends on two K(+) diffusion potentials and an electrical barrier in the stria vascularis, interference with any of these elements can interrupt hearing.     

主观测试在外伤后单侧听力损失评估中的价值

目的:评价反复纯音听阈测试(RPTT)、言语识别阈测试(SRT)及响度优势测试(stenger)等主观测试在单侧听力损失鉴别中的应用价值。方法:将外伤后主述有单侧听力损失的患者163例进行RPTT、SRT及stenger测试等主观测试并全部至少进行声导抗、OAE、ABR中的两项测试并将综合测试结果作为金标准计算出主观测试的敏感度及特异度。结果:RPTT的敏感度为60.0%,特异度为77.1%,诊断指数为137.1%。SRT的敏感度为86.6%,特异度为91.6%,诊断指数为178.2%。stenger测试的敏感度为92.0%,特异度为90.4%,诊断指数为182.4%。结论:RPTT不宜用于诊断伪聋,SRT和stenger测试适合诊断伪聋。