Michał Karlik

Polish Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening Program-—4-year experience (2003—2006)

OBJECTIVE The aim of this paper is to share our experience and observations in running the Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening Program on a national level, present results and indicate some problems that have arisen during these 4 years. METHODS Polish Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening Program started back in 2002 in all neonatal units in Poland. Implemented testing methods consisted of test of transient evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE) performed in all new born children in their first 2-3 days of life and auditory brainstem response testing (ABR) conducted on children, who did not meet the TEOAE pass criteria. Additional questionnaire registered information on ototoxic drugs and family history of hearing impairment in every newborn. Diagnosed children were further referred for treatment and rehabilitation. RESULTS After 4 years of running the program (between 2003 and 2006) a total number of 1,392,427 children were screened for hearing impairment, what stands for 96.3% of all delivered babies, registered in Poland. The screening program enabled to identify and refer for further treatment 2485 children with various types of hearing loss, 312 with profound (0.02% of population) and 145 with severe sensorineural hearing loss (0.11% of population). CONCLUSIONS Our results indicate the accuracy of newborn hearing screening which remain an issue. Although improvement is needed in both intervention systems and diagnostic follow-up of hospitals, the Polish Universal Neonatal Hearing Program fully has achieved the main goal, the identification and treatment of hearing impaired children.

Comparison of rehabilitation results in deaf patients with and without genetically related hearing loss

Abstract The introduction of prognostic tools to evaluate rehabilitation progress in cochlear implant patients (CI patients) is of great importance. The authors attempted to verify whether the identified 35delG mutation in the GJB2 gene can serve as a valuable indicator for rehabilitation progress of CI patients. A group of 51 subjects was studied. Molecular analysis was based on the identification of 35delG in GJB2. Logopedic assessment was performed with a non-verbal test of seven sounds, evaluating detection, discrimination and identification of the sounds during the first, third and sixth months after implantation. Results indicated that patients with GJB2-related deafness (DFNB1)s achieve better results in rehabilitation, but only at the early stages of rehabilitation. Prolonged rehabilitation equalised differences, which, subsequently, excluded this marker as an indicator for rehabilitation evaluation. Copyright

Simple technique for RNA purification from mouse inner ear hair cells

Obtaining a good quality of RNA from small population of cells remain an issue. Isolation for a special anatomic location such as inner ear placed in the temporal bone become a challenge, especially in terms of time needed for isolation of living tissue from the bone, which is a key factor to preserve the RNA. Due to limited accessibility to the technologies such as laser dissection, we present a simplified procedure for isolation of good quality of RNA from the inner ear for further studies.Obtaining a good quality of RNA from small population of cells remain an issue. Isolation for a special anatomic location such as inner ear placed in the temporal bone become a challenge, especially in terms of time needed for isolation of living tissue from the bone, which is a key factor to preserve the RNA. Due to limited accessibility to the technologies such as laser dissection, we present a simplified procedure for isolation of good quality of RNA from the inner ear for further studies.

Cochlear implantation after meningitis: does the post-meningitic deafness aetiology influence worse speech rehabilitation progress?

Many factors influence the speech rehabilitation progress, including: duration of deafness, aetiology, communication mode before implantation, family support. Meningitis can affect not only the cochlear hair cells, but also the upper stages of hearing paths or even other parts of the central nervous system. In the literature we can find the sentence: ‘Rate of neurologic sequelae in children who have had meningitis ranges from 20% to 30% and the prevalence of potentially subtle entities such as learning disability, perceptual and attention deficits, and behavioural problems may be even more pervasive.’ The aim of this study was to compare radiological and surgical observations with the evaluation of speech rehabilitation progress in patients implanted due to post-meningitic deafness.

Porównanie skuteczności ogłuszania mysiego modelu zwierzęcego w oparciu o protokoły wykorzystujące leki ototoksyczne

Summary Aim of the study To compare safety, reliability and usefulness of two deafening protocols on animal mouse model, based on aminoglycosides exposure Material and method Adults mice, Bulb/C, deafened with kanamycine 14 days treatment (group I), single kanamycin injection followed by etacrinic acid administration (group II) and control group. Hearing evaluation performed with ABR recordings on 6th day after drug exposure Results Both protocols were not able to guarantee complete ablation of the inner ear in tested animals. Although short deafening strategy was more effective (83.33% deaf mice) it was combined with high rate of mortality during general anesthesia for hearing evaluation. Conclusions Variable outcomes in deafening mouse animal model implies the necessity of hearing evaluation every time prior to the pathophysiological as well as molecular studies. Mice exposed to severe oto- and nephrotoxic insult do not recover after anesthetic drug administration, thus harvesting inner ear tissues especially as the source of RNA should be performed immediately after ABR recordings.

Speech processor switch-on in ABI patients – two different cases

MICHAL KARLIK, Department of Phoniatrics and Audiology, University School of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland WOLF-PETER SOLLMAN, Department of Neurosurgery, Braunschweig, Germany WITOLD SZYFTER, Department of Otolaryngology University School of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland STANISLAV SEDLAK, Department of Otolaryngology, Prague, Czech Republic ANTONI PRUSZEWICZ, Department of Phoniatrics and Audiology, University School of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland