Objective: In this study, we aimed to
compare ABR threshold values, V. wave latency times, amplitudes obtained
using Click ABR and CE-Chirp ABR methods and procedural times of these
tests in patients with bilateral hearing loss.
Methods: A
total of 19 adult male patients were included in the study. ABR latency
times with 10 dB decreases starting from 100 dB, V. wave latencies, V.
wave amplitudes obtained using Click ABR and CE-Chirp ABR methods and
procedural times were compared for both ears.
Results:
Procedural time for CE-Chirp ABR test was found to be shorter than that
of Click ABR test (p=0.001). For both ears, mean CE-Chirp ABR threshold
values were more favorable than those of Click ABR test [(60.15±10.34
vs. 62.27±9.93) dB nHL, p<0.006]. For both ears, the threshold values
of mean pure tone audiometry were estimated as following: 1 KHz
(55.00±14.36 dB), 2 KHz (60.00±13.40 dB) and 4 KHz (63.48±10.57 dB). The
corresponding values were calculated 62.27±9.93 dB nHL and 60.15±10.34
dB nHL using Click ABR and CE-Chirp ABR methods, respectively.
Procedural time for CE-Chirp ABR test was shorter than that of Click ABR
test [(24.89±4.74 vs. 28.63±4.98) min., p=0.001].
Conclusion: It
has been determined that the use of CE-Chirp stimulus shortened ABR
procedural time and provided responses closer to behavioral threshold
values. In conclusion, we observed that CE-Chirp method was more
advantageous than Click ABR method for the evaluation of the patients
with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss.
Birincil Dil | İngilizce |
---|---|
Konular | Sağlık Kurumları Yönetimi |
Bölüm | Makaleler |
Yazarlar | |
Yayımlanma Tarihi | 5 Nisan 2018 |
Gönderilme Tarihi | 27 Şubat 2018 |
Yayımlandığı Sayı | Yıl 2018 Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1 |