Clinical interpretations of transient otoacoustic emissions.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to characterize the relation of different ordinal patterns of transient otoacoustic emissions (TEOAES) with respect to underlying otologic disorders and auditory status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The results of TEOAEs in 225 patients with various auditory disorders were investigated and compared with normative data established from 90 subjects of various ages. TEOAEs were categorized according to four patterns: (1) normal (general response level within 90% of normative data, (2) reduced amplitude (general response level was > or =2 dB peak sound pressure level (pSPL), but less than the mean -1.64 SD of the normative data), (3) abnormal morphology of frequency spectrum (general response level was within normal limits, but reduced at > or =2 individual octave frequencies between 1,000 and 5,000 Hz), and (4) total absence (response level <2 dB pSPL). RESULTS: This study showed that the normal pattern of TEOAEs, in terms of response amplitude, varied with age. Our results further indicated that a reduced amplitude pattern of TEOAEs was noted in patients with a mild sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL), negative tympanometric pressure, a pressure-equalization tube, and Meniere's disease. TEOAEs provided good frequency-specific information for patients with a noise-induced hearing loss. All patients with ossicular chain abnormalities, more than moderate SNHL, and a middle ear mass or effusion had total absence of TEOAEs. Patients with acoustic neuroma and brainstem lesions presented a complex profile of TEOAEs. In the follow-up of auditory function in patients undergoing otologic surgery, different patterns of TEOAEs between the preoperative and postoperative recordings were evident, which correlated with the hearing thresholds and middle ear status. The abnormal findings of TEOAEs due to specific auditory diseases were discussed. CONCLUSION: The interpretation of TEOAEs can be facilitated through an analysis of specific patterns and in combination with other audiologic tests.

Current evaluation of pseudohypacusis: strategies and classification.

Some cases of pseudohypacusis may involve medicolegal aspects and require a confirmed and quantitative diagnosis. These challenging cases must be identified, and then evaluated with basic audiologic and sophisticated electrophysiologic tests. Data on 64 patients with pseudohypacusis collected over a 4-year period are reported. A classification system was developed from an analysis of these cases and is presented for clinical evaluation and diagnosis. In many cases, conventional audiologic evaluation involving pure tone and speech audiometry may be adequate and sufficient for diagnosis. In more complex cases, evoked otoacoustic emissions (EOAEs) and auditory brain stem responses (ABRs) are needed for confirmation of peripheral auditory sensitivity. We found that EOAEs were the most rapid economical, and objective method, and confirmed the diagnosis of hearing loss in 78.1% of cases. Fifteen percent of subjects required ABRs to substantiate the diagnosis. The reliability of basic audiologic tests based on previous clinical investigations and data from the literature are discussed. We conclude that a thorough knowledge and understanding of pseudohypacusis is essential to verify the existence of pseudohypacusis, to determine its type, and to quantify the auditory thresholds.