SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS IN CHILDREN - 11/09/11

Doi : 10.1016/S0031-3955(05)70514-9

Patrick E. Brookhouser, MD, FAAP, FACS ^{^{*
From the Boys Town National Research Hospital; and the Department of Otolaryngology and Human Communication, Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, Nebraska}}

Résumé

Hearing loss in infants and children may be sensorineural, conductive, or mixed; variable in severity from mild to profound; unilateral or bilateral; symmetric or asymmetric in audiometric configuration; syndromic (involving other identifiable features) or nonsyndromic (isolated hearing loss); congenital or postnatal (i.e., before, during, or after speech and language acquisition) in onset; attributable to genetic or nongenetic causes; characterized by stable, fluctuating, or progressive auditory thresholds; and coexistent with one or more developmental disabilities, such as learning problems or mental retardation.

Absent obvious ear, head, or neck deformities, congenital hearing loss can present as an invisible disability at birth that may not be recognized until an infant fails to achieve expected communicative milestones. Persistent, congenital, or early-onset hearing loss in the moderate to profound range (41 to 100 dB) distorts the developing child's perception of his or her attempts at speech production and the speech of others. If educationally significant, bilateral hearing loss remains undetected through the critical language acquisition period during the first years of life, and the resultant impairment of receptive and expressive speech and language development can impede acquisition of literacy skills, school achievement, and social and emotional development.^{6Bess F.H., Paradise J.L. Universal screening for infant hearing impairment: Not simple, not risk-free, not necessarily beneficial, and not presently justified Pediatrics 1994 ; 93 : 330-334

Cliquez ici pour aller à la section Références, 33Greenberg M.T. Family stress and child competence The effects of early intervention 1983 ; 128 : 407-417

Cliquez ici pour aller à la section Références, 52Musselman C.R., Wilson A.K., Lindsay P.H. Effects of early intervention on hearing impaired children Exceptional Children 1989 ; 55 : 222-228

Cliquez ici pour aller à la section Références, 77Weisel A. Early intervention programs for hearing impaired children—evaluation of outcomes Early Child Dev Care 1990 ; 41 : 77-87

Cliquez ici pour aller à la section Références} Persistent unilateral hearing loss in the moderate to profound range typically had been regarded as developmentally innocuous for a school-aged child if appropriate compensatory strategies, such as preferential classroom seating, were implemented. Recent reports, however, link unilateral sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) to poor academic performance, increased likelihood of repeating a grade, and school behavior problems.^{7Bess F.H., Klee T., Culbertson J.L. Identification, assessment and management of children with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss Ear Hear 1986 ; 7 : 43-51 [cross-ref]

Cliquez ici pour aller à la section Références, 13Brookhouser P.E., Worthington D.W., Kelly W.J. Unilateral hearing loss in children Laryngoscope 1991 ; 101 : 1264-1272 [cross-ref]

Cliquez ici pour aller à la section Références}

In developed countries, 1.0 to 2.0 per 1000 school-aged children exhibit a bilateral SNHL of 50 dB or worse, including 0.5 to 1.0 per 1000 whose bilateral losses exceed 75 dB.^{10Brookhouser PE. Incidence and Prevalence. Presented at National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference on Early Identification of Hearing Impairment in Infants and Young Children, Bethesda, MD, March 1993.

Cliquez ici pour aller à la section Références} Data from the United Kingdom^{25Davis A., Wood S. The epidemiology of childhood hearing impairment: Factors relevant to planning of services Br J Audiol 1992 ; 26 : 77-90 [cross-ref]

Cliquez ici pour aller à la section Références} indicate that 1 of 943 newborns followed longitudinally into school were subsequently confirmed to have a SNHL or mixed hearing loss. Children who were graduates of the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) experienced increased risk for hearing loss (1/174 NICU infants versus 1/1278 non-NICU infants). Infants and children with lesser degrees of persistent hearing loss (i.e., “hard of hearing” versus deaf) are 5 to 10 times as numerous as those with severe to profound losses.^{73US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service Healthy People 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office (1990).

Cliquez ici pour aller à la section Références, 78White K.R., Maxon A.B. Universal screening for infant hearing impairment: Simple, beneficial, and presently justified Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 1995 ; 32 : 201-211

Cliquez ici pour aller à la section Références} Unilateral sensorineural hearing loss (USNHL) of 45 dB or worse among US school-aged children has a prevalence rate of about 3 per 1000 children.^{4 Educational Audiology: Hearing and Speech Management New York: Grune & Stratton (1972).
2

Cliquez ici pour aller à la section Références} Assuming a stricter hearing loss criterion of 26 dB instead of 45 dB, the prevalence increases to 13 per 1000. No reliable prevalence data are available for infants and preschoolers because unilateral losses are generally discovered later in life than bilateral impairments (mean age in one study was 8.78 years).^{13Brookhouser P.E., Worthington D.W., Kelly W.J. Unilateral hearing loss in children Laryngoscope 1991 ; 101 : 1264-1272 [cross-ref]

Cliquez ici pour aller à la section Références} Children with USNHL can experience impaired speech perception when background noise is presented to the better ear. Background noise in most elementary school settings approaches 50 dB to 70 dB sound pressure level (SPL), and unfavorable sound reverberation conditions compound problems in open classrooms.

Early identification of educationally significant hearing loss has been targeted as a national health objective.^{73US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service Healthy People 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office (1990).

Cliquez ici pour aller à la section Références} The 1993 National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Statement on Early Identification of Hearing Impairment in Infants and Young Children^{27 Early Identification of Hearing Impairment in Infants and Young Children NIH Consensus Statement March 1993 ; 11 : 1-24

Cliquez ici pour aller à la section Références} reported the average age of diagnosis of hearing loss in children with congenital or early-onset losses is an unacceptable 2.5 years. Previous early identification initiatives, including public awareness campaigns, mass screening questionnaires for completion after delivery, and a range of neonatal hearing screening techniques, have proven clinically unworkable or prohibitively expensive. The Joint Committee on Infant Hearing,^{41 Joint Committee on Infant Hearing 1994 Position Statement ASHA 1994 ; 36 : 38-41

Cliquez ici pour aller à la section Références} a multispecialty body including pediatricians, otolaryngologists, and audiologists, has issued a series of position statements enumerating risk indicators to facilitate identification of neonates at sufficiently increased risk for permanent hearing loss to warrant hearing screening. A shortcoming of such focused early identification programs is their failure to identify as many as 50% of children who manifest educationally significant hearing loss by elementary school age. Renewed interest in universal hearing screening of the 4 million infants born annually in the United States was stimulated by the introduction of reliable objective screening techniques using evoked otoacoustic emissions and automated auditory brainstem response (ABR) measures. The NIH Consensus Statement on Early Identification of Childhood Hearing Loss^{27 Early Identification of Hearing Impairment in Infants and Young Children NIH Consensus Statement March 1993 ; 11 : 1-24

Cliquez ici pour aller à la section Références} recommends in-hospital hearing screening for all infants admitted to NICUs and screening of all other infants within the first 3 months of life. Evoked otoacoustic emission measures were recommended for initial screening, with all failures being rescreened with ABR. Infants failing rescreening should be referred promptly for comprehensive audiologic evaluation.

The 1994 Position Statement of the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing^{41 Joint Committee on Infant Hearing 1994 Position Statement ASHA 1994 ; 36 : 38-41

Cliquez ici pour aller à la section Références} endorses the goal of universal detection of infants with hearing loss as early as possible. It also addresses the need to identify infants with SNHL having onset after 3 months of age. While the Joint Committee endorsed the goal of universal detection, it also outlined a strategy for clinical settings in which universal screening has not been implemented. The Position Statement includes an expanded list of indicators associated with sensorineural hearing loss, conductive hearing loss, or both to help identify neonates in need of early hearing screening. Indicators for determining which infants should be provided with rescreening or periodic monitoring of hearing were also developed.

The following excerpt from the 1994 Statement provides a reprise of the indicators^{41 Joint Committee on Infant Hearing 1994 Position Statement ASHA 1994 ; 36 : 38-41

Cliquez ici pour aller à la section Références}:

For use with neonates (birth–28 days) when universal screening is not available

1	Family history of hereditary childhood sensorineural hearing loss
2	In utero infection, such as cytomegalovirus (CMV), rubella, syphilis, herpes, and toxoplasmosis
3	Craniofacial anomalies, including those with morphologic abnormalities of the pinna and ear canal
4	Birth weight of less than 1500 g
5	Hyperbilirubinemia at a serum level requiring exchange transfusion
6	Ototoxic medications including, but not limited to, the aminoglycosides used in multiple courses or in combination with loop diuretics
7	Bacterial meningitis
8	Apgar scores of 0 to 4 at 1 minute or 0 to 6 at 5 minutes
9	Mechanical ventilation lasting 5 days or longer
10	Stigmata or other findings associated with a syndrome known to include a sensorineural hearing loss, a conductive hearing loss, or both

For use with infants (29 days–2 years) when certain health conditions develop that require rescreening

1	Parent or caregiver concern regarding hearing, speech, language, or developmental delay
2	Bacterial meningitis and other infections associated with sensorineural hearing loss
3	Head trauma associated with loss of consciousness or skull fracture
4	Stigmata or other findings associated with a syndrome known to include a sensorineural hearing loss, conductive hearing loss, or both
5	Ototoxic medications including, but not limited to, chemotherapeutic agents or aminoglycosides used in multiple courses or in combination with loop diuretics
6	Recurrent or persistent otitis media with effusion for at least 3 months

For use with infants (29 days–3 years) who require periodic monitoring of hearing. Some newborns and infants may pass initial hearing screening but require periodic monitoring of hearing to detect delayed onset sensorineural hearing loss, conductive hearing loss, or both. Infants with these indicators require hearing evaluation at least every 6 months until age 3 years and at appropriate intervals thereafter. Indicators associated with delayed onset sensorineural hearing loss include:

1	Family history of hereditary childhood hearing loss
2	In utero infection, such as CMV, rubella, syphilis, herpes, or toxoplasmosis
3	Neurofibromatosis type II and neurodegenerative disorders4. Persistent pulmonary hypertension in the newborn period

Indicators associated with conductive hearing loss include:

1	Recurrent or persistent otitis media with effusion
2	Anatomic deformities and other disorders that affect eustachian tube function
3	Neurodegenerative disorders

Proposals for additional universal newborn screening requirements are viewed with a healthy skepticism by neonatologists and others responsible for implementing screening programs. The level of test sensitivity and specificity must be considered carefully when proposing mass newborn screening for a low incidence disorder, such as hearing loss. Insufficient capacity for processing large numbers of initial screening failures expeditiously through a rescreening paradigm to eliminate false-positive results can cause a screening program to fail. An optimal protocol would permit infants with normal hearing to be accurately segregated from those with true-positive results who need expensive follow-up, as well as sparing neonates with transient conductive losses the necessity of follow-up.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.