OBJECTIVE: Newborn hearing screening was implemented in Flanders about fifteen years ago. The aim of this study was to determine the aetiology of hearing loss detected by the Flemish screening programme. METHODS: From 1997 to 2011, 569 neonates were referred to our tertiary referral centre after failed neonatal screening with Auditory Brainstem Responses. In case hearing loss (HL) was confirmed, further diagnostic testing was launched. A retrospective chart review was performed analysing the degree of HL, risk factor and aetiology. RESULTS: Metabolic disorders (0.5%), infectious diseases (35.8%), congenital malformations (6.1%) and genetic abnormalities (19.8%), whether or not syndromic, were retained. In 35% of the subjects no obvious aetiology could be determined in the current study. CONCLUSION: In contrast to the literature findings, this series shows a genetic syndromic cause in 80% of the genetic bilateral HL cases. On the other hand connexin positive diagnoses were mostly underrepresented in this study, showing the need for better screening.
OBJECTIVE: Newborn hearing screening was implemented in Flanders about fifteen years ago. The aim of this study was to determine the aetiology of hearing loss detected by the Flemish screening programme. METHODS: From 1997 to 2011, 569 neonates were referred to our tertiary referral centre after failed neonatal screening with Auditory Brainstem Responses. In case hearing loss (HL) was confirmed, further diagnostic testing was launched. A retrospective chart review was performed analysing the degree of HL, risk factor and aetiology. RESULTS:Metabolic disorders (0.5%), infectious diseases (35.8%), congenital malformations (6.1%) and genetic abnormalities (19.8%), whether or not syndromic, were retained. In 35% of the subjects no obvious aetiology could be determined in the current study. CONCLUSION: In contrast to the literature findings, this series shows a genetic syndromic cause in 80% of the genetic bilateral HL cases. On the other hand connexin positive diagnoses were mostly underrepresented in this study, showing the need for better screening.
Authors: Jonathan S Berg; Pankaj B Agrawal; Donald B Bailey; Alan H Beggs; Steven E Brenner; Amy M Brower; Julie A Cakici; Ozge Ceyhan-Birsoy; Kee Chan; Flavia Chen; Robert J Currier; Dmitry Dukhovny; Robert C Green; Julie Harris-Wai; Ingrid A Holm; Brenda Iglesias; Galen Joseph; Stephen F Kingsmore; Barbara A Koenig; Pui-Yan Kwok; John Lantos; Steven J Leeder; Megan A Lewis; Amy L McGuire; Laura V Milko; Sean D Mooney; Richard B Parad; Stacey Pereira; Joshua Petrikin; Bradford C Powell; Cynthia M Powell; Jennifer M Puck; Heidi L Rehm; Neil Risch; Myra Roche; Joseph T Shieh; Narayanan Veeraraghavan; Michael S Watson; Laurel Willig; Timothy W Yu; Tiina Urv; Anastasia L Wise Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Anna M H Korver; Richard J H Smith; Guy Van Camp; Mark R Schleiss; Maria A K Bitner-Glindzicz; Lawrence R Lustig; Shin-Ichi Usami; An N Boudewyns Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2017-01-12 Impact factor: 52.329