Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFaistauer, Marinapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorSilva, Alice Langpt_BR
dc.contributor.authorDominguez, Daniela de Oliveira Ruizpt_BR
dc.contributor.authorBohn, Renatapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorFelix, Temis Mariapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorCosta, Sady Selaimen dapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorRosito, Leticia Petersen Schmidtpt_BR
dc.date.accessioned2023-11-17T03:22:11Zpt_BR
dc.date.issued2022pt_BR
dc.identifier.issn0021-7557pt_BR
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10183/267151pt_BR
dc.description.abstractObjective To evaluate the impact of the Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening (UNHS) on the age at diagnosis, beginning of treatment, and first cochlear implant surgery. Methods A retrospective cohort study with children up to 12 years old with bilateral hearing loss were divided into two groups: patients who underwent UNHS and the ones who didn't. The groups were compared according to their age at the beginning of the evaluation at a specialized center, at the beginning of the intervention, and, for the ones who had indication, at the cochlear implant surgery. The group who underwent UNHS was divided between the ones who passed the screening test and the ones who didn't. They were compared according to their ages at the same moments as the first two groups. Results 135 patients were included. The median age at the first appointment in a specialized center was 1.42 (0.50 and 2.50) years, at the beginning of treatment 2.00 (1.00 and 3.52) years, and the cochlear implant surgery 2.83 (1.83 and 4.66) years. Children who underwent UNHS were younger than those who didn't, at the three evaluated moments (p < 0.001). In a subanalysis, children who passed the UNHS but were later diagnosed with hearing loss reached the first appointment with a specialist and started treatment older than those who failed the tests. Conclusion Performing UNHS interfered with the timing of deafness diagnosis and treatment. However, children who passed the screening but were later diagnosed with hearing loss were the category with the most important delay.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfpt_BR
dc.language.isoengpt_BR
dc.relation.ispartofJornal de pediatria. Rio de Janeiro. Vol. 98, no. 2 (2022), p. 147-154pt_BR
dc.rightsOpen Accessen
dc.subjectNeonatal hearing screeningen
dc.subjectTriagem neonatalpt_BR
dc.subjectHearing lossen
dc.subjectRecém-nascidopt_BR
dc.subjectAudiçãopt_BR
dc.subjectCochlear implanten
dc.subjectSurdezpt_BR
dc.subjectPerda auditivapt_BR
dc.subjectImplante coclearpt_BR
dc.subjectTerapêuticapt_BR
dc.titleDoes universal newborn hearing screening impact the timing of deafness treatment?pt_BR
dc.typeArtigo de periódicopt_BR
dc.identifier.nrb001178116pt_BR
dc.type.originNacionalpt_BR


Files in this item

Thumbnail
   

This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License

Show simple item record