Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2021; 25(03): e365-e373
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1714146
Original Research

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

Luíza Silva Vernier 
1   Graduate Program in Health Sciences, Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre (UFCSPA), Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
,
Karoline Lemos Schneider 
1   Graduate Program in Health Sciences, Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre (UFCSPA), Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
,
Claudia Zanini 
2   Hospital Materno Infantil Presidente Vargas, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
,
Tatiana Paniz 
2   Hospital Materno Infantil Presidente Vargas, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
,
Daniela Centenaro Levandowski 
1   Graduate Program in Health Sciences, Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre (UFCSPA), Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction The newborn hearing screening (NHS) is the most effective strategy for detecting newborns and infants suspected to have hearing loss.

Objective 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.

Methods 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).

Results 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 (p ≤ 0.001 for a vaginal delivery and p = 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.

Conclusion 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.

Keywords

neonatal screening - hearing - maternal-child health services - public hospital - cesarean section


Publication History

Received: 16 January 2020

Accepted: 02 June 2020

Article published online:
24 September 2020

© 2020. Fundação Otorrinolaringologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • References

  • 1 Litovsky R. Development of the auditory system. Handb Clin Neurol 2015; 129: 55-72
    Google Scholar
  • 2 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Erenberg A, Lemons J, Sia C, Trunkel D, Ziring P. Newborn and infant hearing loss: detection and intervention. Pediatrics 1999; 103: 527-530
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 American Speech-Language Hearing Association. Guidelines for audiologists providing informational and adjustment counseling to families of infants and young children with hearing loss at birth to five years of age. 2008: 1-20
  • 4 Fritzsch B, Knipper M, Friauf E. Auditory system: development, genetics, function, aging, and diseases. Cell Tissue Res 2015; 361 (01) 1-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Joint Committee on Infant Hearing 2007 Position Statement. Principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Pediatrics 2007; 120: 898-921
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Atenção à Saúde. Departamento de Ações Programáticas Estratégicas. Diretrizes de Atenção da Triagem Auditiva Neonatal. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde. 2012
  • 7 Simonek MCS, Azevedo MF. False-positive results in newborn universal hearing screening: possible causes. Rev CEFAC 2011; 13: 292-298
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Côrtes-Andrade IF, Bento DV, Lewis DR. Emissions (TEOE): newborn hearing screening program protocols. Rev CEFAC 2013; 15: 521-527
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Romero ACL, Delecrode CR, Cardoso ACV, Frizzo ACF. Brainstem auditive evoked potential in children referred to a neonatal auditive triage program. Rev Bras Saúde Mater Infant 2012; 12: 145-153
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Russo ICP. Acústica e psicoacústica aplicadas à Fonoaudiologia, second edition São Paulo: Lovise; 1999
  • 11 Moraille R, Pickens WL, Visscher MO, Hoath SB. A novel role for vernix caseosa as a skin cleanser. Biol Neonate 2005; 87 (01) 8-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Sadler TW. Langman Embriologia Médica, 12 edition, Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan. 2013
  • 13 Saffer M, Miura MS. Otite média aguda no recém-nascido e no lactente, in: Interamerican Association of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, V Manual de Otorrinolaringologia Pediátrica, IAPO, São Paulo. 2006
  • 14 Marques TR, Mendes PC, Bochnia CFP, Jacob LCB, Roggia SM, Marques JM. Triagem auditiva neonatal: relação entre banho e índice de reteste. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol 2008; 74: 375-381
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Singh G, Archana G. Unraveling the mystery of vernix caseosa. Indian J Dermatol 2008; 53 (02) 54-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Visscher MO, Narendran V, Pickens WL. et al. Vernix caseosa in neonatal adaptation. J Perinatol 2005; 25 (07) 440-446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hoath SB, Pickens WL, Visscher MO. The biology of vernix caseosa. Int J Cosmet Sci 2006; 28 (05) 319-333
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Michelon F, Rockenbach SP, Floriano M, Delgado ED, Barba MCD. Neonatal hearing screening: index regarding the “pass”/”fail” sex, type of childbirth and the time of life. Rev CEFAC 2013; 15: 1189-1195
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Olusanya BO. Follow-up default in a hospital-based universal newborn hearing screening programme in a low-income country. Child Care Health Dev 2009; 35 (02) 190-198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Farahani F, Hamidi Nahrani M, Seifrabiei MA, Emadi M. 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 (01) 1-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Köche JC. Fundamentos de Metodologia científica: teoria da ciência e iniciação à pesquisa. 28 edition, Petrópolis: Vozes. 2009
  • 22 Smolkin T, Mick O, Dabbah M. et al. Birth by cesarean delivery and failure on first otoacoustic emissions hearing test. Pediatrics 2012; 130 (01) e95-e100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Brasil. Lei n° 12.303, de 02 de agosto de 2010. Dispõe sobre a obrigatoriedade de realização do exame denominado Emissões Otoacústicas Evocadas. Brasília: Diário Oficial. 2010
  • 24 Onoda RM, Azevedo MF, Santos AMN. Neonatal Hearing Screening: failures, hearing loss and risk indicators. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2011; 77 (06) 775-783
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Maia RM, Silva MAM, Tavares PMB. Newborn hearing health: speech therapy acting on Family Health Strategy. Rev CEFAC 2011; 14: 206-214
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Lupoli LdaM, Garcia L, Anastasio ART, Fontana AC. Time after birth in relation to failure rate in newborn hearing screening. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2013; 77 (06) 932-935
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Ribas A, Cabral J, Gonçalves V, Gonçalves CGO, Kozlowski L. Newborn hearing screening program: the influence of the lifespan of newborn in the research of transient otoacustic emissions. Rev CEFAC 2013; 15: 773-777
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Pereira PKS, Martins AS, Vieira MR, Azevedo MF. Programa de triagem auditiva neonatal: associação entre perda auditiva e fatores de risco. Pró Fono Revista Atualização Científica 2007; 19: 267-278
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Diejomaoh MFE, Al-Shamali IA, Al-Kandari F, Al-Qenae M, Mohd AT. The reproductive performance of women at 40 years and over. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006; 126 (01) 33-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Santos GHN, Martins MdaG, Sousa MdaS, Batalha SdeJ. Impacto da idade materna sobre os resultados perinatais e via de parto. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2009; 31 (07) 326-334
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Gabinete do Ministro. Portaria GM/MS n° 570, de 1° de junho de 2000. Brasília, DF: Institui o Programa de Humanização do Pré-Natal e Nascimento – Incentivo à assistência Pré-natal; 2000
  • 32 Gomes AG, Marin AH, Piccinini CA, Lopes RCS. Single mother's expectations and feelings regarding their babies. Temas Psicol 2015; 23: 399-411
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 33 World Health Organization. Comprehensive implementation plan on maternal, infant and Young child nutrition. 2012
  • 34 Spong CY. Defining “term” pregnancy: recommendations from the Defining “Term” Pregnancy Workgroup. JAMA 2013; 309 (23) 2445-2446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 American Academy of Pediatrics. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The Apgar score. Pediatrics 2006; 117: 1445-1447
    Google Scholar
  • 36 World Health Organization. Perímetro cefálico por idade. 2016
  • 37 Kliegman R, Jenson HB, Behrman RE. Nelson - Tratado de Pediatria. 19 edition, São Paulo: Elsevier. 2013