PubMed · 5023207
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M H Stroud, S E Kinney. 1972. Incus transposition: a modified technique.. https://doi.org/10.1288/00005537-197204000-00001
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the possibility that infants sleeping in the prone position have higher arousal thresholds to auditory challenges than when sleeping in the supine position. STUDY DESIGN: Polygraphic recordings were performed for 1 night in 25 healthy infants with a median age of 9 weeks. The infants were exposed to white noises of increasing intensities while sleeping successively in the prone and supine positions, or vice versa. Arousal thresholds were defined by the auditory stimuli needed to induce polygraphic arousals. RESULTS: Three infants were excluded from the study because they awoke while their position was being changed. For the 22 infants included in the analysis, more intense auditory stimuli were needed to arouse the infants in the prone position than those in the supine body position (p = 0.011). Arousal thresholds were higher in the prone than in the supine position in 15 infants; unchanged in 4 infants; and lower in the prone position in 3 infants (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Infants show higher arousal thresholds to auditory challenges when sleeping in the prone position than when sleeping in the supine position. The finding could be relevant to mechanisms concerned with the reported association between sudden deaths and the prone sleeping position in infants.
To identify the causes of deafness, 354 pupils attending the Buguruni School for the Deaf in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, were studied. Of these children 205 were boys and 149 were girls, a sex ratio of 1.4:1. The onset of deafness was congenital in 36 (10.2%) and acquired in 318 (89.8%). Among the children with acquired deafness, the cause was unknown in 77 (24.2%); meningitis in 76 (23.9%), ototoxicity in 66 (20.8%), mumps in 53 (16.7%) febrile convulsions in five (1.5%), otitis media in 28 (8.8%) and measles in 13 (4.1%). Among the children with congenital deafness, only ten (27.8%) were identified before the age of 2 years. The findings indicate that most (75.8%) of the causes of acquired deafness are preventable through immunisation, early diagnosis and proper treatment of ear infections and avoidance of prescription of ototoxic drugs. This emphasizes the need for programmes aimed at improving the health services at primary levels of health care which will in turn prevent deafness.
OBJECTIVE: A population of children having bilateral moderate to profound hearing impairment was investigated to find out the number who passed (false negatives) and who failed (true positives) a screening test based on the auditory brain stem response (ABR). DESIGN: This study of the ABR is a parallel report to Lutman, Davis, Fortnum, and Wood (1997), where the transient evoked otoacoustic emission was examined on a similar but not identical population of at-risk neonates. Hearing screening was undertaken in at-risk neonates (targeted screening) at seven hospitals in the UK using the Nottingham ABR Screener. During the period from January 1988 to December 1993, a total of 6983 neonates had been tested. Assessment of audiological records from the participating centers ascertained that 201 children born between January 1988 and December 1993 had hearing threshold levels in both ears of 50 dB or more, averaged over the speech frequencies 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz. Of these, 51 had completed the ABR screening test. Examination of the ABR records, which included both machine and visual scoring, indicated whether they had passed or failed the screening test. RESULTS: Forty-six of the 51 hearing impaired babies failed the neonatal ABR screen either on one or both ears (five false negatives), and 42 failed the test on both ears (nine false negatives). This resulted in field sensitivities of 90% and 82%, respectively. Two cases of suspected progressive hearing loss have been included in the numbers of false negative results. The percentage of babies passing the screen on both ears and subsequently having normal hearing (specificity) is typically 93%. CONCLUSIONS: Neonatal hearing screening in an at-risk population using a highly automated ABR test is a viable and effective tool for identification of hearing impairment. Although the field sensitivity of the test is high, it is unable to identify all babies with a criterion level of hearing loss. There are a number of possible explanations as to the origin of false negative results: configuration of the pure-tone audiogram, a progressive hearing loss, acquired sensorineural or conductive loss, retrocochlear deafness, or an incorrect interpretation of the screening test. Passing a neonatal screening test, therefore, does not exclude the possibility of subsequent hearing impairment and highlights the need for further surveillance.