Auditory neuropathy in a patient exposed to xylene: case report

Is auditory neuropathy an appropriate term? A systematic literature review on its aetiology and pathogenesis

To clarify the aetio-pathogenesis of Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder (ANSD), a total of 845 papers were divided into four categories: Review, Audiology, Treatment and Aetiology. Aetiology was the topic analysed categorising papers as: Genetics, Histopathology, Imaging and Medical diseases. Isolated ANs were in relation to Otoferlin, Pejvakin and DIAPH3 deficiency, and the syndromes were mainly Charcot Marie Tooth, Friedreich Ataxia, mitochondrial disorders and those associated with optic neuropathies. In histopathology papers, important information was available from analyses on human premature newborns and on some syndromic neuropathies. From cochlear dysmorphism to cerebral tumours associated with ANs, these are described in what is identified as the Imaging area. Finally, the prevalent clinical pathology was bilirubinopathy, followed by diabetes. In conclusion, AN/ANSDs do not refer to a clear pathological condition, but to an instrumental pattern without any evidence of auditory nerve involvement, except in a few conditions. The terms AN/ANSD are misleading and should be avoided, including terms such as “synaptopathy” or “dis-synchrony”.

The effects of combined exposure of solvents and noise on auditory function - A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

 Chemical substances can negatively affect the auditory system. Chemical substances alone or combined with high-level noise have recently become a major concern as a cause of occupational hearing loss.

OBJECTIVE

 To assess the combined effect of solvents and noise versus solvents only, or noise only, on the auditory function of workers.

METHOD

 Published articles which included noise and/or solvent exposure or combined effects of solvents and noise, studies conducted on human beings only and the use of audiological tests on participants.

RESULTS

 Thirteen papers were eligible for inclusion. The participants' ages ranged from 18 to 68 years. Results revealed that 24.5% presented with hearing loss as a result of noise exposure only; 18% presented with hearing loss owing to solvent exposure only; and a total of 43.3% presented with hearing loss owing to combined noise and solvent exposure. Furthermore, the prevalence of hearing loss in the noise and solvent group was significantly (p < 0.001) higher than the other groups in 10 out of the 13 studies analysed, with a pooled odds ratio (OR) of 2.754. Of the 178 participants (total of all participants exposed to solvents), a total of 32 participants presented with auditory pathology as a result of exposure to solvents only. There was a significantly higher pooled odds of hearing loss in noise and solvent-exposed group compared to solvent-only group (pooled OR = 2.15, 95% CI: 1.24-3.72, p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

 The findings revealed significantly higher odds of acquiring hearing loss when workers were exposed to a combination of solvents and noise as opposed to solvents only, motivating for its inclusion into hearing conservation programmes.