OBJECTIVE: Both transitory auditory otoemissions (TEOAE) and automated auditory brainstem responses (AABR) are considered adequate methods for universal hearing screening. The goal of this study was to compare the results obtained with each device, applying the same screening procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2001 to 2003, all the newborns in our health area (2454 infants) were evaluated with TEOAE (ILO92, otodynamics) and all those born from 2004 to 2006 (3117) were evaluated with AABR (AccuScreen, Fischer-Zoth). The population studied included all well newborns and those admitted to neonatal intensive care units (NICU). The first screening was normally undertaken with well babies during the first 48h of life, before hospital discharge. Infants referred from this first step underwent a second screening after hospital discharge, before they were a month old. RESULTS: The results from each study group were compared and analyzed for significant differences. TEOAE screening yielded 10.2% fail results from the first screening step; AABR gave 2.6%. In the second screening step, 2% of the newborns screened with TEOAE were referred, whereas 0.32% of those screened with AABR were referred. These differences are statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Although AABR screening tests involve a slightly higher cost in time and money than TEOAE, the results obtained compensate this difference. AABR gives fewer false positives and a lower referral rate; the percent of infants lost during follow-up is consequently smaller. Therefore, in our environment, universal newborn auditory screening with AABR is more effective than that with TEOAE.
OBJECTIVE: Both transitory auditory otoemissions (TEOAE) and automated auditory brainstem responses (AABR) are considered adequate methods for universal hearing screening. The goal of this study was to compare the results obtained with each device, applying the same screening procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2001 to 2003, all the newborns in our health area (2454 infants) were evaluated with TEOAE (ILO92, otodynamics) and all those born from 2004 to 2006 (3117) were evaluated with AABR (AccuScreen, Fischer-Zoth). The population studied included all well newborns and those admitted to neonatal intensive care units (NICU). The first screening was normally undertaken with well babies during the first 48h of life, before hospital discharge. Infants referred from this first step underwent a second screening after hospital discharge, before they were a month old. RESULTS: The results from each study group were compared and analyzed for significant differences. TEOAE screening yielded 10.2% fail results from the first screening step; AABR gave 2.6%. In the second screening step, 2% of the newborns screened with TEOAE were referred, whereas 0.32% of those screened with AABR were referred. These differences are statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Although AABR screening tests involve a slightly higher cost in time and money than TEOAE, the results obtained compensate this difference. AABR gives fewer false positives and a lower referral rate; the percent of infants lost during follow-up is consequently smaller. Therefore, in our environment, universal newborn auditory screening with AABR is more effective than that with TEOAE.