Regional differences of Turkey in risk factors of newborn hearing loss. (November 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Konukseven, Ozlem; Kaya, Sule; Genc, Aydan; Muluk, Nuray Bayar; Basar, Figen Suren; Kirkim, Gunay; Tuncer, Ulku; Karatas, Erkan; Topcu, Cigdem; Bolat, Hilal; Dincol, Ilknur
• Is Part Of: International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology. Volume 102(2017:Nov.)
• Page Start: 49
• Page End: 55
• Publication Date: 2017-11
• Subjects: Symmetric sensorineural hearing loss -- Risk factors -- Parental consanguinity; Otolaryngology -- Periodicals; Pediatrics -- Periodicals; Otolaryngology -- Periodicals; Pediatrics -- Periodicals; Oto-rhino-laryngologie -- Périodiques; Pédiatrie -- Périodiques; 618.9209751
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2017.08.028
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0165-5876

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: The aim of this study was to discover Turkish regional differences in the risk factors of newborn hearing loss. Method: A multi-centered retrospective design was used. A total of 443 children, registered to the national newborn hearing screening programme, with bilateral hearing loss, from five different regions of Turkey, were evaluated in terms of the types of hearing loss, the degree of hearing loss, the types of risk factors, parental consanguinity, age at diagnosis and age of auditory intervention, respectively. Results: There was no significant difference in the prevalence of hearing loss between regions ( χ 2 = 3.210, P = 0.523). Symmetric Sensorineural Hearing Loss (SSHL) was the most common type of HL in all regions (91.8%). Profound HL was the most common degree of HL in all regions (46.2%). There were statistically significant differences between regions in terms of types of HL ( χ 2 = 14.151, P = 0.000). As a total, 323 (72.9%) of subjects did not have any risk factors. There were statistically significant differences between regions in terms of the types of risk factors (pre, peri and post-natal) for SSNHL ( χ 2 = 16.095, P = 0.000). For all regions, the age of diagnosis was convenient with the JCIH criteria. However the age of hearing aid application was prolonged in some regions. There were statistically significant differences between regions in terms of the age of diagnosis ( χ 2 = 93.570, P = 0.000) and the age of auditory intervention ( χ 2 = 47.323, P = 0.000). The confounding effects of gender, age of diagnosis, age of hearing aids applications, HL in the family, types of risk factors for HL on SSNHL were detected. Conclusion: To reach the goal of a high quality newborn hearing screening, there is a need to develop an evidence-based standard for follow up guideline. In addition, risk factors should be re-evaluated according to regional differences and all regions should take their own precautions according to their evidence based data.