METHODS: A retrospective descriptive cohort study on the audiological findings detected during the first hearing assessment done on a child with craniosynostosis using otoacoustic emissions, pure tone audiometry or auditory brainstem response examination. The main aim of this study was to evaluate the type and severity of hearing loss when compared between syndromic and non-sydromic craniosynostosis, and other associated contributory factors.
RESULTS: A total of 31 patients with 62 ears consisting of 14 male patients and 17 female patients were evaluated. Twenty two patients (71%) were syndromic and 9 (29%) were non-syndromic craniosynostosis. Amongst the syndromic craniosynostosis, 9 (41%) had Apert syndrome, 7 (32%) had Crouzon syndrome, 5 (23%) had Pfieffer syndrome and 1 (4%) had Shaethre Chotzen syndrome. Patients with syndromic craniosynostosis were more likely to present with all types and severity of hearing loss, including severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss while children with non-syndromic craniosynostosis were likely to present with normal hearing (p loss including sensorineural hearing loss is more likely to be present in a child with syndromic craniosynostosis (p loss, including that of a severe to profound degree compared to children with non-syndromic craniosynostosis. In addition to that, hearing loss is more likely to be detected when the first hearing test is done at a later age, and this can be an irreversible sensorineural hearing loss. We would like to advocate the need for early audiological screening and follow up in children with syndromic craniosynostosis.
METHOD: The study utilized a semi-structured interview with open-ended questions to obtain information about parents' experiences during the diagnosis period and their challenges when going through that process. In this study, a total of 16 parents of children who were diagnosed with moderate to profound sensorineural hearing loss and received intervention within three years at the time of the study participated. Ten of the children were cochlear implant users, and six were hearing aid users.
RESULTS: Thematic analysis was used to analyse themes generated from the data according to the study objective. Four main themes and 17 subthemes were identified from this study. The four main themes were 1) Parents' emotion; 2) Parental knowledge; 3) Others; 4) Profesional services. Challenges that parents faced often include emotional behaviours such as feeling guilty and devastated during the diagnosis, lack of information-sharing from healthcare givers, lack of knowledge on childhood hearing loss among parents, support from families, seek for a second opinion, worry about others' acceptance, longer time for diagnosis to confirm, late referral to other related profesionals and no priority for the appointment.
CONCLUSION: Emotion is identified as the biggest challenge faced by parents in the process of diagnosis for their children with hearing loss. Hence, management of parental emotion needs to be emphasized by health profesionals as it influences the acceptance of parents towards their child's diagnosis.
OBJECTIVES: To estimate prevalence and secular trends in children's hearing loss.
DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE and Embase from January 1996 to August 2017.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included epidemiologic studies in English reporting hearing loss prevalence.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The modified Leboeuf-Yde and Lauritsen tool was used to assess methodological quality. Meta-analyses combined study-specific estimates using random-effects models.
PARTICIPANTS: Children 0 to 18 years of age.
RESULTS: Among 88 eligible studies, 43.2% included audiometric measurement of speech frequencies. In meta-analyses, pooled prevalence estimates of slight or worse bilateral speech frequency losses >15 decibels hearing level (dB HL) were 13.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.0-17.0). Using progressively more stringent cutpoints, pooled prevalence estimates were 8.1% (95% CI, 1.3-19.8) with >20 dB HL, 2.2% (95% CI, 1.4-3.0) with >25 dB HL, 1.8% (95% CI, 0.4-4.1) with >30 dB HL, and 0.9% (95% CI, 0.1-2.6) with >40 dB HL. Also, 8.9% (95% CI, 6.4-12.3) had likely sensorineural losses >15 dB HL in 1 or both ears, and 1.2% (95% CI, 0.5-2.1) had self-reported hearing loss. From 1990 to 2010, the prevalence of losses >15 dB HL in 1 or both ears rose substantially (all P for trend loss types and secular trend.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Childhood slight or worse hearing loss is prevalent and may be increasing. Advances in understanding hearing loss trajectories, causes, and prevention would require international repositories and longitudinal studies with audiometric data beginning in childhood.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016034148.
METHOD: Articles published between 2000 and 2016 were searched in PUBMED and EBSCO databases.
RESULTS: Thirty-two articles were included in the final review. Most studies with adult participants showed that SMNR has no effect on speech intelligibility. Positive results were reported for acceptance of background noise, preference, and listening effort. Studies of school-aged children were consistent with the findings of adult studies. No study with infants or young children of under 5 years old was found. Recent studies on noise-reduction systems not yet available in wearable hearing aids have documented benefits of noise reduction on memory for speech processing for older adults.
CONCLUSIONS: This evidence supports the use of SMNR for adults and school-aged children when the aim is to improve listening comfort or reduce listening effort. Future research should test SMNR with infants and children who are younger than 5 years of age. Further development, testing, and clinical trials should be carried out on algorithms not yet available in wearable hearing aids. Testing higher cognitive level for speech processing and learning of novel sounds or words could show benefits of advanced signal processing features. These approaches should be expanded to other populations such as children and younger adults. Implications for rehabilitation The review provides a quick reference for students and clinicians regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of SMNR in wearable hearing aids. This information is useful during counseling session to build a realistic expectation among hearing aid users. Most studies in the adult population suggest that SMNR may provide some benefits to adult listeners in terms of listening comfort, acceptance of background noise, and release of cognitive load in a complex listening condition. However, it does not improve speech intelligibility. Studies that examined SMNR in the paediatric population suggest that SMNR may benefit older school-aged children, aged between 10 and 12 years old. The evidence supports the use of SMNR for adults and school-aged children when the aim is to improve listening comfort or reduce listening effort.