» Articles » PMID: 34377169

Delivery Route and the Outcome of Newborn Hearing Screening of Full-Term Neonates Born in a Public Maternal-Infant Hospital in the South of Brazil

Overview
Publisher Thieme
Date 2021 Aug 11
PMID 34377169
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

 The newborn hearing screening (NHS) is the most effective strategy for detecting newborns and infants suspected to have hearing loss.  To verify possible associations between the route of delivery and the results of the NHS conducted at 3 independent times (24, 36, and 36 hours with a facilitator auricular maneuver [FAM]) in the lives of full-term newborns.  A descriptive, observational, prospective study performed with a sample of 462 newborns, with a gestational age ≥ 37 weeks, without risk indicators of hearing loss. The NHS was conducted as a routine element of the facilities, two times: at 24 and 36 hours of life. In the presence of a "failure" in the last test, a new one was immediately performed, following the FAM. Statistic analyses were carried out on the program SPSS version 21.0 (IBM Inc., Armonk, NY, USA).  Of the 462 newborns assessed, 304 (65.80%) were born by vaginal delivery. There was a statistical significance of "pass" in the NHS for the 24-hour evaluation (  ≤ 0.001 for a vaginal delivery and  = 0.002 for a cesarean delivery), with the prevalence of the "pass" index being higher when the baby's lifespan was greater. A statistically significant difference was not observed when the NHS results were compared by taking into account the babies' routes of delivery and the different times of life.  These findings show that full-term babies who were born by cesarean did not show more "failure" in the NHS results, contradicting the hypothesis of the study. Furthermore, to reduce the false-negative rates, regardless of the route of delivery, this assessment should be conducted after the first 24 hours of the newborns' life.

Citing Articles

Effects of Natural Delivery and Cesarean Section on the Result of First Hearing Screening of Newborns.

Fu H, Wang F Noise Health. 2024; 26(121):226-230.

PMID: 38904827 PMC: 11530114. DOI: 10.4103/nah.nah_68_23.


Follow-up of children diagnosed with deafness in a neonatal hearing screening program in Manaus.

Bosco Lopes Botelho J, Monteiro de Carvalho D, Santos-Melo G, Neto J, Nascimento S, Figueiredo W Rev Saude Publica. 2023; 56:120.

PMID: 36629711 PMC: 9749742. DOI: 10.11606/s1518-8787.2022056004207.


Protocol and programme factors associated with referral and loss to follow-up from newborn hearing screening: a systematic review.

Mackey A, Busse A, Del Vecchio V, Maki-Torkko E, Uhlen I BMC Pediatr. 2022; 22(1):473.

PMID: 35932008 PMC: 9354382. DOI: 10.1186/s12887-022-03218-0.

References
1.
Onoda R, Azevedo M, Santos A . Neonatal Hearing Screening: failures, hearing loss and risk indicators. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2011; 77(6):775-83. PMC: 9443756. View

2.
Lupoli L, Garcia L, Anastasio A, Fontana A . Time after birth in relation to failure rate in newborn hearing screening. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2013; 77(6):932-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.03.010. View

3.
McGuire S . World Health Organization. Comprehensive Implementation Plan on Maternal, Infant, and Young Child Nutrition. Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. Adv Nutr. 2015; 6(1):134-5. PMC: 4288273. DOI: 10.3945/an.114.007781. View

4.
Hoath S, Pickens W, Visscher M . The biology of vernix caseosa. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2008; 28(5):319-33. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-2494.2006.00338.x. View

5.
Erenberg A, Lemons J, Sia C, Trunkel D, ZIRING P . Newborn and infant hearing loss: detection and intervention.American Academy of Pediatrics. Task Force on Newborn and Infant Hearing, 1998- 1999. Pediatrics. 1999; 103(2):527-30. DOI: 10.1542/peds.103.2.527. View