婴幼儿自动听性脑干诱发电位不同测试时间的比较及意义

doi:10.6040/j.issn.1673-3770.0.2017.494

山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报 ›› 2018, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (2): 66-69.doi: 10.6040/j.issn.1673-3770.0.2017.494

婴幼儿自动听性脑干诱发电位不同测试时间的比较及意义

周佳蕾,孙世冰,李静雨,陈芳,李晓艳

16411960500);
国家自然科学基金青年项目(81500779)第一作者:周佳蕾。 E-mail:zhoujl@shchildren.com.cn通讯作者:李晓艳。 E-mail:chhshent@163.comDOI:10.6040/j.issn.1673-3770.0.2017.494婴幼儿自动听性脑干诱发电位不同测试时间的比较及意义周佳蕾, 孙世冰, 李静雨, 陈芳, 李晓艳(上海市儿童医院上海交通大学附属儿童医院耳鼻咽喉头颈外科, 上海 200062

收稿日期:2017-11-25 出版日期:2018-03-20 发布日期:2018-03-20
通讯作者: 李晓艳. E-mail:chhshent@163.com
基金资助:
上海市科委西医引导项目(16411960500);国家自然科学基金青年项目(81500779)

Comparison and significance of different automated auditory brainstem response testing times in infants

ZHOU Jialei, SUN Shibing, LI Jingyu, CHEN Fang, LI Xiaoyan

Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Shanghai Childrens Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200062, China

Received:2017-11-25 Online:2018-03-20 Published:2018-03-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的探讨不同测试时间对婴幼儿自动听性脑干诱发电位(AABR)测试结果的影响。方法将97例受试婴幼儿分为A组(30例60耳,听力正常),B组(33例60耳,轻度听力损失),C组(34例60耳,中度及以上听力损失),设定AABR的测试时间为60 s、600 s,分别对三组进行测试,采用kappa一致性检验评价A、B、C三组组内AABR的结果一致性,T检验和单因素方差分析比较三组实际测试所需时间。结果测试时间设定为1 min、10 min时A、B、C三组组内AABR的结果比较,κ值分别为1.000,0.854,0.896。A组实际筛查所需时间为(17.82±7.99)s 和(26.73±75.48)s,差异无统计学意义(P=0.328)。B、C组听力障碍婴幼儿测试时间为60 s时每耳所需时间显著短于测试时间为600 s时,差异有统计学意义［B组:(35.62±20.04)s,(239.05±277.69)s,C组:(54.15±11.92)s,(481.63±228.51)s, P均<0.001)］。在同一时间设置下,三组所需时间差异均有统计学意义(P<0.001),检测所需时间随听力损失程度的增加而增加。结论设定时间为1 min时进行AABR测试对结果无影响,能显著缩短听力筛查的检测时间,提高听力筛查效率和质量。

关键词: 婴幼儿, 自动听性脑干诱发电位, 测试时间

Abstract: Objective To explore the effect of different testing times on the automated auditory brainstem response(AABR)results in infants. Methods Ninety-seven infants were assigned to the following groups: group A(60 ears in 30 infants, normal hearing), group B(60 ears in 33 infants, mild hearing loss), and group C(60 ears in 34 infants, moderate to profound hearing loss). AABR testing times of 60 s and 600 s were employed in all three groups. The consistency of AABR results in groups A, B, and C were evaluated by the kappa consistency test. The t-test and one-way analysis of variance(ANOVA)were used to compare the time required among the three groups. Results The results showed a concordance of κ=1.000,0.854,and 0.896, respectively. The times required for actual screening in group A were 17.82 ±7.99 s and 26.73 ±75.48 s, with no significant difference(P=0.328). The times required for actual screening in groups B and C were 60 s with a testing time of 35.62±20.04 s and 54.15±11.92 s, were 600 s with a testing time of 239.05±277.69 s and 481.63±228.51 s; the time required for each ear was significantly shorter than the testing time(P<0.001). With the same time settings, there was a significant difference among the three groups(P<0.001), and the time required for testing increased with the increase in hearing loss. Conclusions Setting the AABR testing time at 60s had no effect on the results, indicating that the testing time can be reduced while maintaining the same screening efficiency and quality.

Key words: Testing time, Infant, Automated auditory brainstem response

中图分类号:

R764

周佳蕾,孙世冰,李静雨,陈芳,李晓艳. 婴幼儿自动听性脑干诱发电位不同测试时间的比较及意义[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2018, 32(2): 66-69.

ZHOU Jialei, SUN Shibing, LI Jingyu, CHEN Fang, LI Xiaoyan. Comparison and significance of different automated auditory brainstem response testing times in infants[J]. JOURNAL OF SHANDONG UNIVERSITY (OTOLARYNGOLOGY AND OPHTHALMOLOGY), 2018, 32(2): 66-69.

参考文献

[1] 刘生荣,詹磊磊,陈桂霞. 畸变产物耳声发射和快速自动听性脑干反应筛查新生儿听力[J].中国眼耳鼻喉科杂志,2010,10(1):27-28.
[2] 吕丹,李丹慧,赵雅利. 33166例新生儿听力筛查结果分析[J].听力学及言语疾病杂志,2015,23(1):77-79.
[3] Norton SJ, Gorga MP, Widen JE, et al. Identification of neonatal hearing impairment:summary and recommendations[J]. Ear Hear, 2000, 21(5):529-535.
[4] 商莹莹, 倪道凤, 刘世琳. 低频和高频探测音鼓室声导抗测试在婴儿中耳功能诊断中的作用[J]. 中华耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志, 2006,41(5):326-330. SHANG Yingying, NI Daofeng, LIU Shilin. Comparison of the low and high frequency tympanometries as diagnostic tests of middle ear function in infants[J]. Chin J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2006,41(5):326-330.
[5] 陈新. 声导抗测试[M] //姜泗长, 顾瑞. 临床听力学. 北京: 北京医科大学中国协和医科大学联合出版社, 1999:191-232.
[6] Report of the Informal Working Group on Prevention of Deafness and Hearing Impairing Program Planning WHO. Geneva, 1991. WHO/PDH/91.1.
[7] With adaptations from report of the first informal consultation on future organization development for the prevention of deafness and hearing impairment,World Health Organization. Geneva, 1997, WHO/PDH/97.3.
[8] American Academy of Pediatrics Joint Commitee on Infant hearing. Position state-Ment 2002[J]. Pediatrics, 2002, 70(3):496-497.
[9] Katrin Neumann, Alexander Indermark. Validation of a new TEOAEAABR device for newborn hearing screening[J]. Inter J Audiol, 2012, 51(8):570-575.
[10] 商莹莹,刁文雯,倪道凤,等.新生儿监护病房婴幼儿听力筛查及诊断结果分析[J].中华耳科学杂志,2012,10(2):149-154. SHANG Yingying, DIAO Wenwen, NI Daofeng, et al. Results of Hearing Screening and Diagnostic Audiology Assessment in NICU Infants[J]. Chin J Otol, 2012, 10(2):149-154.
[11] Sena TA, Ramos N, Rodrigues GR, et al. Testing time comparison between two procedures with new technologies of Automated Auditory Brainstem Response(AABR)[J]. Codas, 2013, 25(1):34-38.
[12] Cebulla M, Stürzebecher E, Elberling C, et al. New clicklike stimuli for hearing testing[ J]. Am Acad Audiol, 2007, 18(9):725-738.
[13] 孙志宏,孙黎晓,吴红丽. 瞬态诱发性耳声发射技术联合自动听性脑干反应检查筛查高危新生儿听力受损的价值[J].中华实用诊断与治疗杂志, 2016, 30(11):1101-1102. SUN Zhihong, SUN Lixiao, WU Hongli. Value of transient evoked otoacoustic emission technology combined with automated auditory brainstem response checks to screening hearing impair in high-risk neonates[J]. J Chin Prac Diag Ther, 2016, 30(11):1101-1102.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

婴幼儿自动听性脑干诱发电位不同测试时间的比较及意义

Comparison and significance of different automated auditory brainstem response testing times in infants

HTML

PDF (PC)

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 8

多维度评价

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	周佳蕾,孙世冰,李晓艳. 婴幼儿宽频声导抗测试[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2018, 32(4): 91-94.
[2]	王海,苟栋明,陈伟. 经口吹气治疗幼儿鼻腔异物45例疗效分析[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2016, 30(1): 61-63.
[3]	苗刚勇, 肖旭平, 谭志强. 低温等离子射频技术在婴幼儿甲状舌管囊肿手术中的应用[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2015, 29(6): 52-55.
[4]	余崇仙，杨克林，张晓敏，汪平 . 听力筛查未通过婴幼儿的客观听力评估[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2013, 27(6): 38-41.
[5]	侯东明，曹荣萍，孟国珍，程岚. 婴幼儿鼻腔先天性占位的诊断及鼻内镜手术治疗[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2013, 27(3): 36-38.
[6]	赵利敏，倪坤，吴佳丽，陈淑梅，李晓艳. 婴幼儿吸气性喉喘鸣病因分析与治疗[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2013, 27(2): 49-51.
[7]	边致强，屈传强综述，刘亚群审校. 多层螺旋CT对婴幼儿先天性感音性耳聋的诊断价值[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2009, 23(6): 41-.
[8]	曲玲 . 243例未通过听力筛查的婴幼儿ABR结果分析[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2008, 22(2): 189-190 .