CASE REPORT: We present the case of a 38-year-old multipara woman whose first trimester screening showed a normal karyotype. However, the bilateral femur and humerus length symmetrically shortened after 20 weeks. Next-generation sequencing for mutations in potential genes leading to skeletal dysplasia detected a novel de novo mutation (c.1438G > A, p.Gly480Arg) in COL2A1, causing Stickler syndrome type 1. This pathogenic mutation might impair or destabilize the collagen structure, leading to collagen type II, IX, and XI dysfunction.
CONCLUSION: We identified a novel de novo mutation in COL2A1 related to the STL1 syndrome and delineated the extent of the skeletal dysplasia disease spectrum.
METHODS: A total of 229 community-dwelling older adults aged 60 years or older participated in this study. Variables were measured using the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15), Revised University of California at Los Angeles Loneliness Scale (R-UCLA), Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE).
RESULTS: There was an independent association between DSI and quality of life (P < .05) and between DSI and hearing loss alone and cognitive function (P < .05) in older adults. In addition, higher education was associated with better quality of life and cognitive function.
CONCLUSIONS: DSI is a significant factor affecting the quality of life and cognitive function in older adults. Sociodemographic factors such as education play an important role in improving quality of life and cognitive function. Thus, increasing the awareness of this disability is important to ensure that older adults receive the necessary support services and rehabilitation to improve their level of independence.
OBJECTIVE: To study the effectiveness of distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) as first screening tool among non-risk newborns in a hospital with high delivery rate.
METHOD: A total of 722 non-risk newborns (1444 ears) were screened with both DPOAE and AABR prior to discharge within one month. Babies who failed AABR were rescreened with AABR ± diagnostic auditory brainstem response tests within one month of age.
RESULTS: The pass rate for AABR (67.9%) was higher than DPOAE (50.1%). Both DPOAE and AABR pass rates improved significantly with increasing age (p-value<0.001). The highest pass rate for both DPOAE and AABR were between the age of 36-48 h, 73.1% and 84.2% respectively. The mean testing time for AABR (13.54 min ± 7.47) was significantly longer than DPOAE (3.52 min ± 1.87), with a p-value of <0.001.
CONCLUSIONS: OAE test is faster and easier than AABR, but with higher false positive rate. The most ideal hearing screening protocol should be tailored according to different centre.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the prescribed and measured gain of hearing aids fit according to the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v5 procedure for children with moderately severe to profound hearing loss; and to examine the impact of choice of prescription on predicted speech intelligibility and loudness.
RESEARCH DESIGN: Participants were fit with Phonak Naida V SP hearing aids according to the NAL-NL1 and DSL v5 procedures. The Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) and estimated loudness were calculated using published models.
STUDY SAMPLE: The sample consisted of 16 children (30 ears) aged between 7 and 17 yr old.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The measured hearing aid gains were compared with the prescribed gains at 50 (low), 65 (medium), and 80 dB SPL (high) input levels. The goodness of fit-to-targets was quantified by calculating the average root-mean-square (RMS) error of the measured gain compared with prescriptive gain targets for 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz. The significance of difference between prescriptions for hearing aid gains, SII, and loudness was examined by performing analyses of variance. Correlation analyses were used to examine the relationship between measures.
RESULTS: The DSL v5 prescribed significantly higher overall gain than the NAL-NL1 procedure for the same audiograms. For low and medium input levels, the hearing aids of all children fit with NAL-NL1 were within 5 dB RMS of prescribed targets, but 33% (10 ears) deviated from the DSL v5 targets by more than 5 dB RMS on average. For high input level, the hearing aid fittings of 60% and 43% of ears deviated by more than 5 dB RMS from targets of NAL-NL1 and DSL v5, respectively. Greater deviations from targets were associated with more severe hearing loss. On average, the SII was higher for DSL v5 than for NAL-NL1 at low input level. No significant difference in SII was found between prescriptions at medium or high input level, despite greater loudness for DSL v5 than for NAL-NL1.
CONCLUSIONS: Although targets between 0.25 and 2 kHz were well matched for both prescriptions in commercial hearing aids, gain targets at 4 kHz were matched for NAL-NL1 only. Although the two prescriptions differ markedly in estimated loudness, they resulted in comparable predicted speech intelligibility for medium and high input levels.