부산대학교 도서관

Early detection of hearing impairment is of great significance. In our hospital, an AABR is performed on a newborn baby, and if a hearing disorder is suspected, a conventional ABR is performed. In some cases, the results of AABR and conventional ABR differed; thus, we investigated the current situation to assess the usefulness of AABR. The subjects were 4,359 patients who underwent AABR, and the results of AABR and conventional ABR were compared. We also investigated the status of AABR and the presence of high-risk factors for hearing loss in children. There were 65 children with a “Refer” on AABR, among which 49 had conventional ABR. False negatives were 16.0% and false positives were 17.8%. The threshold levels of conventional ABR in the mismatched ears ranged from 20 dB to 60 dB. Regarding high-risk factors for hearing loss, the results of AABR were consistent with those of conventional ABR, and no false positive results were found in children with head and neck malformations, which were statistically significant. In contrast, the false negative rate was significantly higher in children with birth asphyxia, and all four ears with false negative results were associated with birth asphyxia. There were ears with mismatched results of AABR and conventional ABR for children with birth asphyxia; however, no mismatch occurred in cases of severe hearing loss or profound deafness, confirming that AABR is useful. There were some cases in which hearing loss was recognized later in ears with a “Pass” on AABR, and it is necessary to be careful especially in children with birth asphyxia because false negative results may occur.