Display options
Cite
Faistauer M, Silva AL, Dominguez DOR, et al. Does universal newborn hearing screening impact the timing of deafness treatment?. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2021;doi: 10.1016/j.jped.2021.04.008.
Faistauer, M., Silva, A. L., Dominguez, D. O. R., Bohn, R., Félix, T. M., Costa, S. S. D., & Rosito, L. P. S. (2021). Does universal newborn hearing screening impact the timing of deafness treatment?. Jornal de pediatria, . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jped.2021.04.008
Faistauer, Marina, et al. "Does universal newborn hearing screening impact the timing of deafness treatment?." Jornal de pediatria vol. (2021). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jped.2021.04.008
Faistauer M, Silva AL, Dominguez DOR, Bohn R, Félix TM, Costa SSD, Rosito LPS. Does universal newborn hearing screening impact the timing of deafness treatment?. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2021 Jun 21; doi: 10.1016/j.jped.2021.04.008. Epub 2021 Jun 21. PMID: 34166624.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Pediatr (Rio J). 2021 Jun 21; doi: 10.1016/j.jped.2021.04.008. Epub 2021 Jun 21.

Does universal newborn hearing screening impact the timing of deafness treatment?.

Jornal de pediatria

Marina Faistauer, Alice Lang Silva, Daniela de Oliveira Ruiz Dominguez, Renata Bohn, Têmis Maria Félix, Sady Selaimen da Costa, Letícia Petersen Schmidt Rosito

Affiliations

  1. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Saúde da Criança e do Adolescente, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
  2. Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Serviço de Otorrinolaringologia, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil. Electronic address: [email protected].
  3. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Faculdade de Medicina, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
  4. Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Serviço de Genética Médica, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
  5. Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Serviço de Otorrinolaringologia, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.

PMID: 34166624 DOI: 10.1016/j.jped.2021.04.008

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening (UNHS) on the age at diagnosis, beginning of treatment, and first cochlear implant surgery.

METHODS: A retrospective cohort study with children up to 12 years old with bilateral hearing loss were divided into two groups: patients who underwent UNHS and the ones who didn't. The groups were compared according to their age at the beginning of the evaluation at a specialized center, at the beginning of the intervention, and, for the ones who had indication, at the cochlear implant surgery. The group who underwent UNHS was divided between the ones who passed the screening test and the ones who didn't. They were compared according to their ages at the same moments as the first two groups.

RESULTS: 135 patients were included. The median age at the first appointment in a specialized center was 1.42 (0.50 and 2.50) years, at the beginning of treatment 2.00 (1.00 and 3.52) years, and the cochlear implant surgery 2.83 (1.83 and 4.66) years. Children who underwent UNHS were younger than those who didn't, at the three evaluated moments (p < 0.001). In a subanalysis, children who passed the UNHS but were later diagnosed with hearing loss reached the first appointment with a specialist and started treatment older than those who failed the tests.

CONCLUSION: Performing UNHS interfered with the timing of deafness diagnosis and treatment. However, children who passed the screening but were later diagnosed with hearing loss were the category with the most important delay.

Copyright © 2021 Sociedade Brasileira de Pediatria. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cochlear implant; Hearing loss; Neonatal hearing screening

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publication Types