4.2 Article

The Natural History of Hearing Loss in Pendred Syndrome and Non-Syndromic Enlarged Vestibular Aqueduct

期刊

OTOLOGY & NEUROTOLOGY
卷 40, 期 3, 页码 E178-E185

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002140

关键词

Audiometric profiles; Enlarged vestibular aqueduct; Hearing loss; Non-syndromic enlarged vestibular aqueduct; PDS mutations; Pendred syndrome; SLC26A4

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The aim was to investigate the progress of hearing loss over time in a cohort of pendred syndrome and non-syndromic enlarged vestibular aqueduct (PS/NSEVA) with one or two confirmed pathogenic variations in SLC26A4. Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Subjects and Methods: At our tertiary referral center, a retrospective search of all patients with enlarged vestibular aqueduct, hearing loss and SLC26A4 mutations yielded 103 individuals by March 2017, 96 of whom had records of hearing levels; both an early audiometry and the latest between 3 and 668 months follow-up. Pure-tone average (PTA; average of thresholds at 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz) was calculated for both ears at time 1 and time 2. Neonatal screening results were retrieved. Results: Eighty-seven (87) individuals had biallelic (M2) and 16 had monoallelic alterations (M1) in their SLC26A4. On average, the PTA progressed to 80 dB HL by the age of 6 years for the entire cohort, and 3.2 years for the biallelic (M2) affected individuals. 25% of the cohort was screened in the neonatal screening program; of these 42% had passed'' at least monaurally. Audiometric profiles related to age show faster deterioration in high frequencies than in low frequencies. Conclusion: In patients with PS/NSEVA and SLC26A4 mutations, the average hearing loss progresses to 80 dB HL by the age of 6 years. For biallelic (M2) affected individuals it was 3.2 years. Although hearing levels reached severe to profound during childhood, almost 1/2 had passed neonatal hearing screening, at least monaurally, emphasizing the need for close follow-up.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据