Objective: To calculate the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator in detecting hearing loss and to compare values of these parameters when the examination is done in a soundproof booth and in a quiet room. Methods: Design: Analytical, cross-sectional study Setting: Tertiary Public University Hospital Patients: Patients seen at the Ear Unit of a tertiary public university hospital from June 2009 to August 2010 were tested using the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator and pure tone audiometry, inside a soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room with an ambient noise of 50dB, with a different investigator for each examination. Each ear was treated as a separate subject. Results obtained from the HearCheck™ Navigator were designated as observed values and were classified as “no hearing loss” for green light, and “with hearing loss” for yellow or red lights. Results were compared with pure tone air conduction averages designated as gold standard values. Normal hearing acuity (0-25 dB) was classified as no hearing loss. Pure tone air conduction averages of 26dB and above were classified as “with hearing loss” and were further stratified as mild hearing loss (26-40dB) and moderate or worse hearing loss (>41 dB). Observed and gold standard values were compared and tabulated in a 2x2 table for all levels of hearing loss, mild hearing loss, and moderate or worse hearing loss. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator inside a soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room were determined using pure tone audiometry as the gold standard. Results: 100 patients (200 ears) were tested, with a median age of 43 years old (range 15-75), and an almost equal number of male and female participants (52 males, 48 females). Accuracy rate of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator inside the soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room were 82.5% and 84% respectively for all levels of hearing loss. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were similar whether the examination was done inside the soundproof audiometry booth or in a quiet room. These values were notably higher in patients with moderate or worse hearing loss compared to patients with mild hearing loss. Conclusion The Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator shows potential as an accurate, portable, easy-to-use tool to screen for hearing loss, especially for cases of moderate or worse hearing loss, without the need for soundproof audiometry booths or special training. It is recommended that further studies be done to differentiate degrees of hearing loss, and to evaluate its usefulness in other target populations, including school children and the elderly.
Hearing Loss

Objective: To describe the audiological profile, clinical features and briefly summarize the speech and language development of a child with Kabuki syndrome (KS). KS is a rare malformation syndrome that usually presents with mental retardation and multiple congenital anomalies including ear diseases and hearing loss. Methods: Design: Case report Setting: Tertiary Public University Hospital Subject: One patient Results: A five-year-old female diagnosed with KS at age three presented with moderate to severe conductive hearing loss in the right ear with a drop at the high frequencies and moderate to severe conductive sloping hearing loss in the left ear. She also had fluctuating tympanometric findings. She was fit with binaural hearing aids. Conclusion Ear diseases and hearing loss should immediately be considered in patients diagnosed with KS. A comprehensive audiological and otolaryngological evaluation should also be performed when presented with a KS case.
Hearing Loss

A 19-year-old woman presented with an 11-month history of sudden-onset left sided hearing loss accompanied by vertigo and headache. Audiometric testing revealed profound left- sided hearing loss. A contrast-enhanced MRI of the internal auditory canal performed 5 months after symptom onset was interpreted as showing a vascular loop, probably the anterior inferior cerebellar artery, abutting and indenting on the left vestibulocochlear nerve; and a prominent and high-riding left jugular bulb. In this study, the internal auditory canals were assessed to be of normal width, with walls that were smooth and sharply defined. A cerebral CT angiogram subsequently performed did not show any abnormal findings related to the previously identified vascular loop. On the basis of these radiologic findings, the patient was advised surgery by physicians at a tertiary- care institution, presumably to address the identified vascular loop. A second opinion was sought by the patient.
Hearing Loss

No abstract available.
Hearing ; Hearing Loss

No abstract available.
Hearing Loss* ; Hearing*

No abstract available.
Hearing Loss* ; Hearing* ; Iron*

No abstract available.
Cisplatin* ; Hearing Loss* ; Hearing*

No abstract available.
Hearing Loss* ; Hearing*

No abstract available.
Hearing Loss* ; Hearing* ; Uveomeningoencephalitic Syndrome*

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: When a disability is superimposed on a previous disability, the concept of aggravation of disability should be applied. In rating the disability for hearing loss, we focused on the aggravation of disability and the methods of assessment. SUBJECTS AND METHOD: For the past 12 years, we have provided legal advisory for 111 cases of hearing injury, for which disability had to be rated. In 11 of those 111 cases, disability was assessed in consideration of aggravation of disability. We assessed disability using three rating methods: they were based on 1) a change of hearing level from assumed normal, 2) apportionment of new hearing injury in final hearing, and 3) a change in disability rating. We evaluated for significant differences and correlations between the values obtained by each method. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the results by the methods 1 and 2. The disability rating by the method 2 showed good correlations with those assessed by the methods 1 and 3. CONCLUSION: When considering aggravation of disability in hearing, the method 2 could be a good alternative when the standard method 3 is inappropriate.
Disability Evaluation ; Hearing ; Hearing Loss