Article

Isolated preauricular pit and tags: Is it necessary to investigate renal abnormalities and hearing impairment

Otorhinolaryngology Department, Inonu University, Turgut Ozal Medical Center, Malatya, Turkey.
Archiv für Klinische und Experimentelle Ohren- Nasen- und Kehlkopfheilkunde (Impact Factor: 1.61). 03/2008; 265(9):1057-60. DOI: 10.1007/s00405-008-0595-y
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We investigated the incidence and co-existence of hearing impairment and renal abnormalities in healthy children with preauricular tags and pits. Study population consists of 13,740 primary school children from routine health check. Thirty-five children with preauricular tags and pits were noted. Control group consisted of 91 patients without pits and tags, who underwent renal ultrasound and were scheduled to pediatric outpatient clinic. Urinalysis, renal ultrasound, otoacoustic emission were performed in both the groups. The prevalence of renal abnormality (1/36; 2.7%) and hearing impairment (1/36; 2.7%) in patients with preauricular tags and pits was similar to that of control group (3/91; 3.2% and 4/91; 4.3%) (P = 0.87, P = 0.64, respectively). According to our results, it is not necessary to investigate hearing or urinary abnormality in patients with preauricular tag or pit, unless there is an association of a syndrome or family history of hearing or renal impairment.

1 Follower
 · 
192 Views
  • Source
    • "Control group only underwent ultrasonography on basis of abnormal antenatal anomaly scan , therefore rate likely to be an underestimate . Numerator in control group calculated from percentage . Unclear diagnostic standards . Firat et al . 2008 [ 2 ] Study group : 36 children with isolated PAT / PAS detected during routine primary school health check . Control group : 91 unmatched children seen in clinic for headache Cohort ( level 1b ) CAKUT detected on ultrasound scan 1 / 36 ( 2 . 8% [ 0 . 15 , 16 ] ) of study group had renal anomalies . 3 / 91 ( 3 . 3% [ 0 . 86 , 10 ) of co"
    Archives of Disease in Childhood 01/2013; 98(1):84-7. DOI:10.1136/archdischild-2012-302878 · 2.91 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Our goals were to (1) study the prevalence of hearing impairment in a large cohort of infants with preauricular skin tags or ear pits and compare it with that among all other newborns participating in our universal newborn hearing screening program during the same period and (2) evaluate the effectiveness of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions as a hearing-screening tool in this population. During the study period of 7.5 years, 68484 infants were screened for hearing impairment, of whom 637 (0.93%) had preauricular skin tags and/or ear pits. The population was divided into 3 groups: (1) a low-risk group for hearing impairment; (2) a high-risk group for hearing impairment; and (3) a very high-risk group for hearing impairment. The screening results and audiological follow-up for these infants were examined retrospectively. A significantly higher prevalence of permanent hearing impairment was found among infants with preauricular skin tags or ear pits (8 of 1000), compared with infants without tags or pits (1.5 of 1000). In the low-risk group, the prevalence was 3.4 of 1000, compared with 0.5 of 1000 in infants with and without preauricular tags or pits, respectively. In the high-risk group, the prevalence was 77 of 1000, compared with 20 of 1000 in infants with and without preauricular tags or pits, respectively. The odds ratio for hearing impairment associated with preauricular skin tags and/or ear pits after adjusting for level of risk group was 4.9. All infants diagnosed with permanent hearing impairment, with the exception of 1 with late-onset impairment, were detected by in-hospital transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions screening. Infants with preauricular skin tags or ear pits are at increased risk for permanent hearing impairment. Transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions were found to be an effective hearing-screening tool in this population.
    PEDIATRICS 11/2008; 122(4):e884-90. DOI:10.1542/peds.2008-0606 · 5.30 Impact Factor
  • AAP Grand Rounds 01/2009; 21(1):2-2. DOI:10.1542/gr.21-1-2
Show more