Download PDF
Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 2021; 225(03): 262-266
DOI: 10.1055/a-1253-8727
Original Article

The Effect of Anesthesia Type During Delivery on Neonatal Otoacoustic Emission Hearing Test Results: A Tertiary Center Experience

Betül Yakıştıran 
1   Division of Perinatology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Turkish Ministry of Health Ankara City Hospital
,
Mehmet Karslı
2   Obstetrics and gynecology, Istanbul Universitesi-Cerrahpasa, Istanbul, Turkey
,
Emre Canpolat
3   Neonatology, Ministry of Health Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
,
Yüksel Oğuz
4   Obstetrics and gynecology, Ministry of Health Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
,
Orhan Altınboğa
1   Division of Perinatology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Turkish Ministry of Health Ankara City Hospital
,
Sevki Celen
5   Obstetrics and gynecology, Etlik İhtisas Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Ankara, Turkey
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Hearing is essential for the healthy development of an infant as language is one of the main stimulants of intellectual capacity. We investigate the effect of anesthesia type during delivery on neonatal otoacoustic emission (OAE) hearing test results.

Methods This retrospective cross-sectional study includes 1,493 healthy, full-term (39/0–40/6 gestational weeks) newborns of healthy women and who were delivered by cesarean section. Newborns were divided into 2 groups based on their anesthesia type during delivery: 1) general anesthesia group (n=160), and 2) spinal anesthesia group (n=1333). Maternal age, anesthesia type, birth weight, gestational age at birth, neonatal gender, 1st–5th minute APGAR scores, and OAE results were compared between the groups.

Results 1287 (86.2%) newborns were reported to have passed the first step of OAE; 206 (13.8%) newborns were reported to have failed the first step and passed the second test. In the general anesthesia group, 133 (83.1%) of the newborns passed the first OAE test and 27 (16.9%) newborns had false-positive results. In the spinal anesthesia group, 1,154 (86.6%) of the newborns passed the first OAE test and 179 (13.4%) newborns had false-positive results. The difference between the 2 groups by false-positive values was found to be statistically significant (p<0.001).

Conclusions Type of delivery anesthesia may have an effect on the false-positive rates of OAE test results.

Key words

hearing screening - otoacoustic emissions - caesarean delivery - anesthesia


Publication History

Received: 10 June 2020

Accepted after revision: 21 August 2020

Article published online:
29 September 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Mukari SZ, Tan KY, Abdullah A. A pilot project on hospital-based universal newborn hearing screening: Lessons learned. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2006; 70: 843-851
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Smolkin T, Mick O, Dabbah M. et al. Birth by cesarean delivery and failure on first otoacoustic emissions hearing test. Pediatrics 2012; 130: 95-100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Mohd K, Rafidah KN, Affizal A. et al. Anxiety of the mothers with referred baby during Universal Newborn Hearing Screening. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2011; 75: 513-517
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Schwarz Y, Kaufman G, Daniel S. Newborn hearing screening failure and maternal factors during pregnancy. Int J Pediatric Otorhinolaryngol 2017; 103: 65-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Dimitriou A, Perisanidis C, Chalkiadakis V. et al. The universal newborn hearing screening program in a public hospital: the importance of the day of examination. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 91: 90-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Smolkin T, Awawdeh S, Blazer S. et al. Delayed first otoacoustic emission test decreases failure on neonatal hearing screening after cesarean delivery. Acta Pediatr 2013; 102: 194-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Güven S. The effect of mode of delivery on newborn hearing screening results. Turk Arch Otorhinolarnygol 2019; 57: 19-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Sahin C, Terzioğlu U, Yiğit G. Sudden bilateral hearing loss after spinal anesthesia. J Laryngol Oto 2015; 129: 395-397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Vilhena D, Pereira L, Duarte D. et al. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss after orthopedic surgery under combined spinal and epidural anesthesia. Case Rep Otolaryngol 2016; 4295601. DOI: 10.1155/2016/4295601.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Schaffartzik W, Hirsch J, Frickmann F. et al. Hearing loss after spinal and general anesthesia: a comperative study. Anesth Analg 2000; 91: 1466-1472
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Özdemir Ö, Tümkaya F. Yenidoğanda işitme tarama programı ve yönetimi. Türkiye Klinikleri. J Pediatr 2017; 26: 13-21
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bolat H, Bebitoğlu FG, Ozbaş S. et al. National newborn hearing screening program in Turkey: struggles and implementations between 2004 and 2008. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2009; 73: 1621-1623
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Stueve MP, Rourk CO. Estimation of hearing loss in children: comparison of auditory steady state response and behavioral test methods. Am J Audiology 2003; 12: 125-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Probst R, Lonsbury-Martin BL, Martin GK. A review of otoacoustic emissions. J Acoust Soc Am 1991; 89: 2027-2067
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Farahani F, Hamidi NM, Seifrabiei MA. et al. The effect of mode of delivery and hospital type on newborn hearing screening results using otoacoustic emissions: based on screening age. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 69: 1-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Saitoh Y, Sakoda T, Hazama M. et al. Transient evoked otoacoustic emissions in newborn infants: effects of ear asymmetry, gender and age. J Otolaryngol 2006; 35: 133-138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sato H, Sando J, Takahashi H. Sexual dimorphism and development of the human cochlea: computer 3-D measurement. Acta Otolaryngol 1991; 111: 1037-1040
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Teixeira FM, Tomita S, de Lima MA. Evaluation of tympanometric alterations in patients subject to general anesthesia with nitrous oxide. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2005; 71: 274-280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 He YL, Seno H, Tsujimoto S. et al. The effects of uterine and umbilical blood flows on the transfer of propofol across the human placenta during in vitro perfusion. Anesth Analg 2001; 93: 151-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Setoyama K, Shinzato T, Misumi K. et al. Effects of propofol-sevoflurane anesthesia on the maternal and fetal hemodynamics blood gases, and uterine activity in pregnant goats. J Vet Med Sci 2003; 65: 1075-1081
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Huang B, Yan L, Zhang Z. et al. General anesthetic induced differential changes in latency of auditory evoked potential in the central nucleus of inferior colliculus of mouse. Neurosci Lett 2019; 708: 134325
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Walsted A, Salomon G, Olsen KS. Low-frequency hearing loss after spinal anesthesia. Perilymphatic hypotonia?. Scand Audiol 1991; 20: 211-215
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Fog J, Wang LP, Sundberg A. et al. Hearing loss after spinal anesthesia is related to needle size. Anesth Analg 1990; 70: 517-522
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Solak S, Tulga T. Transient unilateral sudden hearing loss after spinal anesthesia. Agri 2019; 31: 50-52
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Khoza-Shangaze K, Joubert K. The influence of epidural anesthesia on new-born hearing screening: a pilot study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2012; 4: 65
    PubMedGoogle Scholar