Comparative Study of 3 Audiologic Tests for Detecting Hearing Loss after Military Training
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: New Thai conscripts have to practise shooting. The impulse noise from gunfire can lead to acoustic trauma and affect their quality of life. Traditionally, conventional audiometry is used for detection of acoustic trauma after gunshots in military training. However, this test has some limitations for hearing loss detection at frequency higher than 8,000 Hz, and for subtle change detection in cochlear structure which nowadays can be detected by Extended High-Frequency (EHF) audiometry and Otoacoustic Emissions (OAEs). Therefore this study was conducted to compare the prevalence of hearing loss detected by conventional audiometry, EHF audiometry, and OAEs. Material and methods: The study is prospective descriptive. 80 conscripts were recruited, received a past medical history check by questionnaires, and examined with ENT. All of them had to be trained with M-16 gunshot program for 50 bullets. Conventional audiometry, EHF audiometry, and OAEs were used to assess their hearing level regarding the frequency and prevalence of hearing loss before the training, after the training within 24 hours, and 48 hours after the training. Results: There were eighty conscripts who completed all 3 measurements. Their mean age is 20.65 years old and all of them had normal hearing before the training. Within 24 hours after the gunshot program, there were 20% and 18.7% additional hearing loss detected by EHF audiometry and OAEs, respectively. After 48 hours, the prevalence from EHF audiometry and OAEs were 33.7% and 28.7%, respectively. Conclusion: EHF audiometry and OAEs are the supplemental test for conventional audiometry in detection of high frequency and early cochlear function loss. This can be applied in a protocol
for conscript training program to detect all spectrum of hearing loss.
Article Details
References
2. Yong JS, Wang DY. Impact of noise on hearing in the military. Mil Med Res. 2015;2:6.
3. Brown CJ. Electrophysiologic Assessment of Hearing. In: Flint P, Cummings C, Haughey B, Thomas R, Harker L, Robbins T, et al, eds. In:Cummings Otolaryngology: Head and Neck Surgery Review. 4th ed. Baltimore: Mosby; 2005. P. 3466-76.
4. Dobie RA. Noise-induced hearing loss. In: Bailey BJ, Johnson JT, Newlands SD, eds. Head and Neck Surgery-Otolaryngology. 4th ed. Vol. 2. Philadelphia, USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;2006. P. 2906-23.
5. Arts HA. Sensorineural hearing loss: evaluation and management in adults. In: Cummings Otolaryngology :Head and Neck. 4th ed. Vol. 3. Philadelphia, USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;2006. P. 3542-3.
6. Le Prell CG, Yamashita D, Minami SB, Yamasoba T, Miller JM. Mechanisms of noise-induced hearing loss indicate multiple methods of prevention. Hear Res. 2007;226(1-2):22-43.
7. Stanley A. Essentials of Audiology. 4th ed. New York, NY: Thieme;2016. P. 456- 497.
8. Helfer TM, Jordan NN, Lee RB. Postdeployment hearing loss in U.S. Army soldiers seen at audiology clinics from April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004. Am J Audiol. 2005;14(2):161-8.
9. Hausler R. The effects of acoustic overstimulation. Ther Umsch. 2004;61(1):21-
10. HOTZ MA, PROBST R, HARRIS FP, HAUSER R. Monitoring the Effects of Noise Exposure using Transiently Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh). 1993;113(4):478-482.
11. Marshall L, Lapsley Miller JA, Heller LM, Wolgemuth KS, Hughes LM, Smith SD, et al. Detecting incipient inner-ear damage from impulse noise with otoacoustic emission. J A coust Soc Am. 2009;125(2):995-1013.
12. Mehrparvar AH, Mirmohammadi SJ, Davari MH, Mostaghaci M, Mollasadeghi A, Bahaloo M, et al. Conventional Audiometry, High-Frequency Audiometry, and DPOAE for Early Diagnosis of NIHL. Iran Red Cres Med J. 2014;16(1):140-147.
13. Balatsouras DG, Homsioglou E, Danielidis V. Extended high-frequency audiometry in patients with acoustic trauma. Clin. Otolaryngol. 2005;30(3):249–254.
14. Flint PW, Haughey BH, Lund VJ, Niparko J, Robbins K, Thomas JR, et al. Cummings Otolaryngology Head & Neck surgery. 6th ed. Philadelphia, USA: Mosby Elsevier;2015. P. 2345-2355.
15. Humes LE, Joellenbeck LM, Durch JS. Responding to Noise Risks: Hearing Conservation Programs in the Military. In: Noise and military service. Implication for hearing loss and tinnitus. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press;2006; P.146-189.
16. Rocha RL, Atherino CC, Frota SM. High-frequency audiometry in normal hearing military firemen exposed to noise. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;76(6):687-94.
17. Bourchom W., Hanchumpol P., Jaruchinda P. Comparative Study of Hearing Loss Between Using and Non-using 5-Wings type Ear Protection of Thai Military Training. J Med Assoc Thai. 2018;101(7):971-5.