Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T09:09:52.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The use of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions as a hearing screen following grommet insertion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2011

O T Dale*
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, UK
L J McCann
Affiliation:
Health Protection Agency South West, Gloucester, UK
D Thio
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, UK
S C Wells
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, UK
A J Drysdale
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr Oliver T Dale, Department of ENT Surgery, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton TA1 5DA, UK E-mail: otdale@doctors.net.uk

Abstract

Objective:

This study aimed to evaluate the sensitivity of transient evoked otoacoustic emission testing as a screening tool for hearing loss in children, after grommet insertion.

Method:

A prospective study was conducted of 48 children (91 ears) aged three to 16 years who had undergone grommet insertion for glue ear. At post-operative review, pure tone audiometry was performed followed by transient evoked otoacoustic emission testing. Outcomes for both tests, in each ear, were compared.

Results:

The pure tone audiometry threshold was ≤20 dB in 85 ears (93.4 per cent), 25 dB in two ears (2.2 per cent) and ≥30 dB in four ears (4.4 per cent). Transient evoked otoacoustic emissions were detected in 69 ears (75.8 per cent). The sensitivity of transient evoked otoacoustic emission testing for detecting hearing loss was 100 per cent for ≥30 dB loss but only 66.7 per cent for ≥25 dB loss.

Conclusion:

Transient evoked otoacoustic emission testing offers a sensitive means of detecting hearing loss of ≥30 dB following grommet insertion in children. However, the use of such testing as a screening tool may miss some cases of mild hearing loss.

Type
Main Articles
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Martin, GK, Probst, R, Lonsbury-Martin, BL. Otoacoustic emissions in human ears: normative findings. Ear Hear 1990;11:106–20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Kemp, DT. Stimulated acoustic emissions from within the human auditory system. J Acoust Soc Am 1978;64:1386–91CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Cullington, HE, Kumar, BU, Flood, LM. Feasibility of otoacoustic emissions as a hearing screen following grommet insertion. Br J Audiol 1998;32:5762CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Richardson, HC, Elliott, C, Hill, J. The feasibility of recording transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions immediately following grommet insertion. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1996;21:445–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Tilanus, SC, Van Stenis, D, Snik, AF. Otoacoustic emission measurements in evaluation of the immediate effect of ventilation tube insertion in children. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995;104:297300CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Saleem, Y, Ramachandran, S, Ramamurthy, L, Kay, NJ. Role of otoacoustic emission in children with middle-ear effusion and grommets. J Laryngol Otol 2007;121:943–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Owens, JJ, McCoy, MJ, Lonsbury-Martin, BL, Martin, GK. Otoacoustic emissions in children with normal ears, middle ear dysfunction, and ventilating tubes. Am J Otol 1993;14:3440Google ScholarPubMed
8Robinette, M. Clinical observations with transient otoacoustic emissions with adults. Semin Hear 1992;13:2336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Daya, H, Hinton, AE, Radomskiej, P, Huchzermeyer, P. Otoacoustic emissions: assessment of hearing after tympanostomy tube insertion. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1996;21:492–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Charlier, K, Debruyne, F. The effect of ventilation tubes on otoacoustic emissions. A study of 106 ears in 62 children. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg 2004;58:6771Google ScholarPubMed