OBJECTIVE: Selection of diagnostic tests for children with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) is influenced by clinical suspicion. Testing results reported in the literature are similarly biased. We evaluate the usefulness of a comprehensive diagnostic battery for each child. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Tertiary care university hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 270 children referred for severe to profound SNHL between January 2002 and June 2009. INTERVENTIONS: Results of the following were reviewed: magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, renal ultrasound, electrocardiography, fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption test, connexin 26 sequencing, genetic consultation, and ophthalmologic consultation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Diagnostic yield of each test was determined. RESULTS: Each diagnostic test or consultation was completed by at least 95% of patients for whom it was ordered. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed abnormalities explaining SNHL in 24% of patients. Computed tomography showed inner ear anomalies in 18% of patients. Biallelic connexin 26 mutations were found in 15%. Renal ultrasound found anomalies in 4% of patients. Electrocardiography found 1% of patients with prolonged QT intervals. Fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption test result was positive in 0.5%. Genetic consultation found a genetic cause for hearing loss in 25%. Ophthalmologic consultation found abnormalities associated with hearing loss in 8%. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic radiologic imaging is the highest yielding test for evaluating children with SNHL. Connexin 26 sequencing identifies a nearly nonoverlapping subset of children compared with imaging. Specialty consultations, particularly from a clinical geneticist, can improve diagnostic yield. Other tests, although of lower diagnostic yield for SNHL, can identify important diseases that significantly affect patient health.
OBJECTIVE: Selection of diagnostic tests for children with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) is influenced by clinical suspicion. Testing results reported in the literature are similarly biased. We evaluate the usefulness of a comprehensive diagnostic battery for each child. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Tertiary care university hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 270 children referred for severe to profound SNHL between January 2002 and June 2009. INTERVENTIONS: Results of the following were reviewed: magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, renal ultrasound, electrocardiography, fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption test, connexin 26 sequencing, genetic consultation, and ophthalmologic consultation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Diagnostic yield of each test was determined. RESULTS: Each diagnostic test or consultation was completed by at least 95% of patients for whom it was ordered. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed abnormalities explaining SNHL in 24% of patients. Computed tomography showed inner ear anomalies in 18% of patients. Biallelic connexin 26 mutations were found in 15%. Renal ultrasound found anomalies in 4% of patients. Electrocardiography found 1% of patients with prolonged QT intervals. Fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption test result was positive in 0.5%. Genetic consultation found a genetic cause for hearing loss in 25%. Ophthalmologic consultation found abnormalities associated with hearing loss in 8%. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic radiologic imaging is the highest yielding test for evaluating children with SNHL. Connexin 26 sequencing identifies a nearly nonoverlapping subset of children compared with imaging. Specialty consultations, particularly from a clinical geneticist, can improve diagnostic yield. Other tests, although of lower diagnostic yield for SNHL, can identify important diseases that significantly affect patient health.
Authors: D P Kelsell; J Dunlop; H P Stevens; N J Lench; J N Liang; G Parry; R F Mueller; I M Leigh Journal: Nature Date: 1997-05-01 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: F Denoyelle; D Weil; M A Maw; S A Wilcox; N J Lench; D R Allen-Powell; A H Osborn; H H Dahl; A Middleton; M J Houseman; C Dodé; S Marlin; A Boulila-ElGaïed; M Grati; H Ayadi; S BenArab; P Bitoun; G Lina-Granade; J Godet; M Mustapha; J Loiselet; E El-Zir; A Aubois; A Joannard; J Levilliers; E N Garabédian; R F Mueller; R J Gardner; C Petit Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 1997-11 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Paul D Judge; Erik Jorgensen; Monica Lopez-Vazquez; Patricia Roush; Thomas A Page; Mary Pat Moeller; J Bruce Tomblin; Lenore Holte; Craig Buchman Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2019 Jul/Aug Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: John S Oghalai; Susan E Caudle; Barbara Bentley; Homer Abaya; Jerry Lin; Dian Baker; Claudia Emery; Heather Bortfeld; Jody Winzelberg Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: C Carranza; I Menendez; M Herrera; P Castellanos; C Amado; F Maldonado; L Rosales; N Escobar; M Guerra; D Alvarez; J Foster; S Guo; S H Blanton; G Bademci; M Tekin Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2015-10-06 Impact factor: 4.438