Vestibular Assessment in Infants with Congenital or Early Onset Sensorineural Hearing Loss: Is Neonatal Vestibular Screening Required? A Scoping Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Objectives
- Which vestibular assessment tests or protocols are undertaken in infants with congenital or early onset (<12 months old) SNHL?
- What are the measures of association regarding VD in infants with congenital or early onset (<12 months old) SNHL?
- What are the sensitivity and specificity values of the vestibular assessment tests or protocols in infants with congenital or early onset (<12 months old) SNHL?
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Protocol and Registration
2.2. Eligibility Criteria
- Population: Infants with congenital or early onset (<12 months old) SNHL, with or without cochlear implantation. For this review, infants were defined as human beings aged 0–12 months of age [25]. Any data sources combining results from infants and older paediatric age groups had to report them separately.
- Concept: Articles that included at least one vestibular test in evaluating vestibular function in the target population. Vestibular tests in this study were defined as any test that measures the vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR), vestibulo-collic reflex (VCR), or vestibulo-spinal reflex (VSR) in isolation.
- Context: Articles were required to report one or more of the following: (i) Measures of association of VD in the target population (with/without cochlear implantation) or in comparison to healthy controls or other groups of children with SNHL (with/without CI). (ii) Types of vestibular function tests carried out on the target population (with/without CI) in isolation or in comparison with other vestibular tests. (iii) Sensitivity and specificity of vestibular test(s).
- Other: Primary, secondary data, or grey literature published in the English language and sourced during the searching period between 1 February and 21 April 2023 and updated in February 2025 were evaluated for inclusion. Literature was required to be accessible through full text or granted access through contact with author(s) or other libraries.
2.3. Information Sources
2.4. Search
2.5. Selection of Sources of Evidence
- Phase 1—Identification: All selected databases were search with the resulting articles arranged in alphabetical order (author, year). All duplicates were removed manually.
- Phase 2—Screening: All titles and abstracts of string searches across all selected databases were screened according to the eligibility criteria. In cases where no abstract was available or there was any uncertainty regarding eligibility, articles were referred directly to phase 3.
- Phase 3—Eligibility: Full-text screening was conducted for articles which were considered for inclusion after title and abstract screening. In any case of uncertainty regarding the inclusion of articles, a supervisor within the UCC Audiology Department was consulted.
- Phase 4—Inclusion: Eligible articles were documented and included in the review.
2.6. Data Charting Process
2.7. Data Items
2.8. Critical Appraisal of Included Sources of Evidence
2.9. Synthesis of Results
3. Results
3.1. Selection of Sources of Evidence
3.2. Characteristics of Sources of Evidence
3.3. Critical Appraisal Within Sources of Evidence
3.4. Results of Individual Sources of Evidence
3.5. Synthesis of Results
3.5.1. Characteristics of SNHL and Diagnosis
3.5.2. Vestibular Assessments and Corresponding Sensitivity and Specificity Measures
3.5.3. Measures of Association Between Vestibular Dysfunction and SNHL in Infants
4. Discussion
5. Limitations
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
AABR | Automated auditory brainstem response |
ABR | Auditory brainstem response |
AC | Air-conducted/conduction |
ASSR | Auditory Steady State Response |
BC | Bone-conducted/conduction |
BERA | Brainstem-evoked response audiometry |
BOA | Behavioural Observation Audiometry |
CASP | Critical Appraisal Skills Programme |
cCMV | Congenital cytomegalovirus |
CI | Cochlear implantation |
Click-ABR | Click-evoked auditory brainstem response |
COR | Conditioned Oriented Responses |
Cx26 | Connexin 26 |
cVEMP | Cervical vestibular-evoked myogenic potential |
DPOAE | Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emission |
HL | Hearing Level |
JBI | Joanna Briggs Institute |
MeSH | Medical Subject Headings |
NA | Not applicable |
NR | Not reported |
PCC | Population Concept Context |
PRISMA (ScR) | Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (Extension for Scoping Reviews) |
SCC | Semicircular canal |
SCM | Sternocleidomastoid |
SNHL | Sensorineural hearing loss |
TB-ABR | Tone-burst auditory brainstem response |
TEOAE | Transient-evoked Otoacoustic Emission |
UCC | University College Cork |
UNC | Unclear |
UNHS | Universal Newborn Hearing Screening |
VD | Vestibular dysfunction |
VCR | Vestibulo-collic reflex |
vHIT | Video head impulse test |
VOR | Vestibulo-ocular reflex |
VSR | Vestibulo-spinal reflex |
Appendix A
Appendix A.1. Keywords Used in Preliminary Search of Google Scholar
- ‘Infants’
- ‘Sensorineural Hearing Loss’
- ‘Vestibular Assessment’
- ‘Infants AND Sensorineural Hearing Loss AND Vestibular Assessment’
Appendix A.2. Search String for Databases with MeSH Index
Appendix A.3. Search String for Databases Without MeSH Index
Appendix B
Martens et al., 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023 [4,16,32,33] |
| ||||
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Cohort Studies (JBI, 2020). | Yes | No | UNC | NA | |
1 | Were the two groups similar and recruited from the same population? | ✓ | |||
2 | Were the exposures measured similarly to assign people to both exposed and unexposed groups? | ✓ | |||
3 | Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way? | ✓ | |||
4 | Were confounding factors identified? | ✓ | |||
5 | Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? | ✓ | |||
6 | Were the groups/participants free of the outcome at the start of the study (or at the moment of exposure)? | ✓ | |||
7 | Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way? | ✓ | |||
8 | Was the follow-up time reported and sufficient to be long enough for outcomes to occur? | ✓ | |||
9 | Was follow-up complete, and if not, were the reasons for loss of follow-up described and explored? | ✓ | |||
10 | Were strategies to address incomplete follow-up utilized? | ✓ | |||
11 | Was appropriate statistical analysis used? | ✓ | |||
UNC: unclear. NA: not applicable. | |||||
Include | Exclude | Seek further info | |||
Overall appraisal | Low risk of bias |
Akrich et al., 2023 [27] | Analysis of specific risk factors of neurodevelopmental disorder in hearing-impaired infants under ten months of age: “EnTNDre” an opening research stemming from a transdisciplinary partnership | ||||
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Cohort Studies (JBI, 2020). | Yes | No | UNC | NA | |
1 | Were the two groups similar and recruited from the same population? | ✓ | |||
2 | Were the exposures measured similarly to assign people to both exposed and unexposed groups? | ✓ | |||
3 | Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way? | ✓ | |||
4 | Were confounding factors identified? | ✓ | |||
5 | Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? | ✓ | |||
6 | Were the groups/participants free of the outcome at the start of the study (or at the moment of exposure)? | ✓ | |||
7 | Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way? | ✓ | |||
8 | Was the follow-up time reported and sufficient to be long enough for outcomes to occur? | ✓ | |||
9 | Was follow-up complete, and if not, were the reasons for loss of follow-up described and explored? | ✓ | |||
10 | Were strategies to address incomplete follow-up utilized? | ✓ | |||
11 | Was appropriate statistical analysis used? | ✓ | |||
UNC: unclear. NA: not applicable. | |||||
Include | Exclude | Seek further info | |||
Overall appraisal | Moderate risk of bias |
Dhondt et al., 2021 [28] | Vestibular Function in Children with Congenital Cytomegalovirus Infection: 3 Years of Follow-Up. | ||||
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Cohort Studies (JBI, 2020). | Yes | No | UNC | NA | |
1 | Were the two groups similar and recruited from the same population? | ✓ | |||
2 | Were the exposures measured similarly to assign people to both exposed and unexposed groups? | ✓ | |||
3 | Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way? | ✓ | |||
4 | Were confounding factors identified? | ✓ | |||
5 | Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? | ||||
6 | Were the groups/participants free of the outcome at the start of the study (or at the moment of exposure)? | ✓ | |||
7 | Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way? | ✓ | |||
8 | Was the follow-up time reported and sufficient to be long enough for outcomes to occur? | ✓ | |||
9 | Was follow-up complete, and if not, were the reasons for loss of follow-up described and explored? | ✓ | |||
10 | Were strategies to address incomplete follow-up utilized? | ✓ | |||
11 | Was appropriate statistical analysis used? | ✓ | |||
UNC: unclear. NA: not applicable. | |||||
Include | Exclude | Seek further info | |||
Overall appraisal | Low–moderate risk of bias |
Dhondt et al., 2022 [29] | Predicting Early Vestibular and Motor Function in Congenital Cytomegalovirus Infection. | ||||
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Cohort Studies (JBI, 2020). | Yes | No | UNC | NA | |
1 | Were the two groups similar and recruited from the same population? | ✓ | |||
2 | Were the exposures measured similarly to assign people to both exposed and unexposed groups? | ✓ | |||
3 | Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way? | ✓ | |||
4 | Were confounding factors identified? | ✓ | |||
5 | Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? | ✓ | |||
6 | Were the groups/participants free of the outcome at the start of the study (or at the moment of exposure)? | ✓ | |||
7 | Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way? | ✓ | |||
8 | Was the follow-up time reported and sufficient to be long enough for outcomes to occur? | ✓ | |||
9 | Was follow-up complete, and if not, were the reasons for loss of follow-up described and explored? | ✓ | |||
10 | Were strategies to address incomplete follow-up utilized? | ✓ | |||
11 | Was appropriate statistical analysis used? | ✓ | |||
UNC: unclear. NA: not applicable. | |||||
Include | Exclude | Seek further info | |||
Overall appraisal | Low risk of bias |
Dhondt et al., 2023 [30] | Vestibular Follow-up Program for Congenital Cytomegalovirus Based on 6 Years of Longitudinal Data Collection. | ||||
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Cohort Studies (JBI, 2020). | Yes | No | UNC | NA | |
1 | Were the two groups similar and recruited from the same population? | ✓ | |||
2 | Were the exposures measured similarly to assign people to both exposed and unexposed groups? | ✓ | |||
3 | Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way? | ✓ | |||
4 | Were confounding factors identified? | ✓ | |||
5 | Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? | ✓ | |||
6 | Were the groups/participants free of the outcome at the start of the study (or at the moment of exposure)? | ✓ | |||
7 | Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way? | ✓ | |||
8 | Was the follow-up time reported and sufficient to be long enough for outcomes to occur? | ✓ | |||
9 | Was follow-up complete, and if not, were the reasons for loss of follow-up described and explored? | ✓ | |||
10 | Were strategies to address incomplete follow-up utilized? | ✓ | |||
11 | Was appropriate statistical analysis used? | ✓ | |||
UNC: unclear. NA: not applicable. | |||||
Include | Exclude | Seek further info | |||
Overall appraisal | Low risk of bias |
Maes et al., 2017 [31] | Comparison of the Motor Performance and Vestibular Function in Infants with a Congenital Cytomegalovirus Infection or a Connexin 26 Mutation: A Preliminary Study | ||||
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies (JBI, 2020). | Yes | No | UNC | NA | |
1 | Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined? | ✓ | |||
2 | Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail? | ✓ | |||
3 | Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way? | ✓ | |||
4 | Were objective, standard criteria used for measurement of the condition? | ✓ | |||
5 | Were confounding factors identified? | ✓ | |||
6 | Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? | ✓ | |||
7 | Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way? | ✓ | |||
8 | Was appropriate statistical analysis used? | ✓ | |||
UNC: unclear. NA: not applicable. | |||||
Include | Exclude | Seek further info | |||
Overall appraisal | Low risk of bias |
Shen et al., 2022 [34] | Cervical vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials: in 3-month-old infants: Comparative characteristics and feasibility for infant vestibular screening. | ||||
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Control Studies (JBI, 2020). | Yes | No | UNC | NA | |
1 | Were the groups comparable other than the presence of disease in cases or the absence of disease in controls? | ✓ | |||
2 | Were cases and controls matched appropriately? | ✓ | |||
3 | Were the same criteria used for identification of cases and controls? | ✓ | |||
4 | Was exposure measured in a standard, valid and reliable way? | ✓ | |||
5 | Was exposure measured in the same way for cases and controls? | ✓ | |||
6 | Were confounding factors identified? | ✓ | |||
7 | Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? | ✓ | |||
8 | Were outcomes assessed in a standard, valid and reliable way for cases and controls? | ✓ | |||
9 | Was the exposure period of interest long enough to be meaningful? | ✓ | |||
10 | Was appropriate statistical analysis used? | ✓ | |||
UNC: unclear. NA: not applicable. | |||||
Include | Exclude | Seek further info | |||
Overall appraisal | Low–moderate risk of bias |
Sheykholesami et al., 2005 [35] | Vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials in infancy and early childhood. | ||||
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Reports (JBI, 2020). | Yes | No | UNC | NA | |
1 | Were patient’s demographic characteristics clearly described? | ✓ | |||
2 | Was the patient’s history clearly described and presented as a timeline? | ✓ | |||
3 | Was the current clinical condition of the patient on presentation clearly described? | ✓ | |||
4 | Were diagnostic tests or assessment methods and the results clearly described? | ✓ | |||
5 | Was the intervention(s) or treatment procedure(s) clearly described? | ✓ | |||
6 | Was the post-intervention clinical condition clearly described? | ✓ | |||
7 | Were adverse events (harms) or unanticipated events identified and described? | ✓ | |||
8 | Does the case report provide takeaway lessons? | ✓ | |||
UNC: unclear. NA: not applicable. | |||||
Include | Exclude | Seek further info | |||
Overall appraisal | Low risk of bias |
Teschner et al., 2008 [36] | ‘Minimized rotational vestibular testing’ as a screening procedure detecting vestibular areflexy in deaf children: screening cochlear implant candidates for Usher syndrome Type I. | ||||
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Reports (JBI, 2020). | Yes | No | UNC | NA | |
1 | Were patient’s demographic characteristics clearly described? | ✓ | |||
2 | Was the patient’s history clearly described and presented as a timeline? | ✓ | |||
3 | Was the current clinical condition of the patient on presentation clearly described? | ✓ | |||
4 | Were diagnostic tests or assessment methods and the results clearly described? | ✓ | |||
5 | Was the intervention(s) or treatment procedure(s) clearly described? | ✓ | |||
6 | Was the post-intervention clinical condition clearly described? | ✓ | |||
7 | Were adverse events (harms) or unanticipated events identified and described? | ✓ | |||
8 | Does the case report provide takeaway lessons? | ✓ | |||
UNC: unclear. NA: not applicable. | |||||
Include | Exclude | Seek further info | |||
Overall appraisal | Low risk of bias |
Verrecchia et al., 2019 [37] | Methodological aspects of testing vestibular myogenic potentials in infants at universal hearing screening program | ||||
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Series (JBI, 2020). | Yes | No | UNC | NA | |
1 | Were there clear criteria for inclusion in the case series? | ✓ | |||
2 | Was the condition measured in a standard, reliable way for all participants included in the case series? | ✓ | |||
3 | Were valid methods used for identification of the condition for all participants included in the case series? | ✓ | |||
4 | Did the case series have consecutive inclusion of participants? | ✓ | |||
5 | Did the case series have complete inclusion of participants? | ✓ | |||
6 | Was there clear reporting of the demographics of the participants in the study? | ✓ | |||
7 | Was there clear reporting of clinical information of the participants? | ✓ | |||
8 | Were the outcomes or follow-up results of cases clearly reported? | ✓ | |||
9 | Was there clear reporting of the presenting site(s)/clinic(s) demographic information? | ✓ | |||
10 | Was statistical analysis appropriate? | ✓ | |||
UNC: unclear. NA: not applicable. | |||||
Include | Exclude | Seek further info | |||
Overall appraisal | Low–moderate risk of bias |
Verrecchia et al., 2020 [38] | The feasibility, validity and reliability of a child friendly vestibular assessment in infants and children candidates to cochlear implant | ||||
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Cross-Sectional Studies (JBI, 2020). | Yes | No | UNC | NA | |
1 | Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined? | ✓ | |||
2 | Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail? | ✓ | |||
3 | Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way? | ✓ | |||
4 | Were objective, standard criteria used for measurement of the condition? | ✓ | |||
5 | Were confounding factors identified? | ✓ | |||
6 | Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? | ✓ | |||
7 | Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way? | ✓ | |||
8 | Was appropriate statistical analysis used? | ✓ | |||
UNC: unclear. NA: not applicable. | |||||
Include | Exclude | Seek further info | |||
Overall appraisal | Low risk of bias |
Zagólski O, 2007 [39] | Vestibular System in Infants with Hereditary Nonsyndromic Deafness | ||||
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Control Studies (JBI, 2020). | Yes | No | UNC | NA | |
1 | Were the groups comparable other than the presence of disease in cases or the absence of disease in controls? | ✓ | |||
2 | Were cases and controls matched appropriately? | ✓ | |||
3 | Were the same criteria used for identification of cases and controls? | ✓ | |||
4 | Was exposure measured in a standard, valid and reliable way? | ✓ | |||
5 | Was exposure measured in the same way for cases and controls? | ✓ | |||
6 | Were confounding factors identified? | ✓ | |||
7 | Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? | ✓ | |||
8 | Were outcomes assessed in a standard, valid and reliable way for cases and controls? | ✓ | |||
9 | Was the exposure period of interest long enough to be meaningful? | ✓ | |||
10 | Was appropriate statistical analysis used? | ✓ | |||
UNC: unclear. NA: not applicable. | |||||
Include | Exclude | Seek further info | |||
Overall appraisal | Low risk of bias |
Zagólski O, 2008a [40] | Vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials and caloric stimulation in infants with congenital cytomegalovirus infection. | ||||
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Control Studies (JBI, 2020). | Yes | No | UNC | NA | |
1 | Were the groups comparable other than the presence of disease in cases or the absence of disease in controls? | ✓ | |||
2 | Were cases and controls matched appropriately? | ✓ | |||
3 | Were the same criteria used for identification of cases and controls? | ✓ | |||
4 | Was exposure measured in a standard, valid and reliable way? | ✓ | |||
5 | Was exposure measured in the same way for cases and controls? | ✓ | |||
6 | Were confounding factors identified? | ✓ | |||
7 | Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? | ✓ | |||
8 | Were outcomes assessed in a standard, valid and reliable way for cases and controls? | ✓ | |||
9 | Was the exposure period of interest long enough to be meaningful? | ✓ | |||
10 | Was appropriate statistical analysis used? | ✓ | |||
UNC: unclear. NA: not applicable. | |||||
Include | Exclude | Seek further info | |||
Overall appraisal | Low risk of bias |
Zagólski O, 2008b [41] | Vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials and caloric stimulation in infants with congenital cytomegalovirus infection. | ||||
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Control Studies (JBI, 2020). | Yes | No | UNC | NA | |
1 | Were the groups comparable other than the presence of disease in cases or the absence of disease in controls? | ✓ | |||
2 | Were cases and controls matched appropriately? | ✓ | |||
3 | Were the same criteria used for identification of cases and controls? | ✓ | |||
4 | Was exposure measured in a standard, valid and reliable way? | ✓ | |||
5 | Was exposure measured in the same way for cases and controls? | ✓ | |||
6 | Were confounding factors identified? | ✓ | |||
7 | Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? | ✓ | |||
8 | Were outcomes assessed in a standard, valid and reliable way for cases and controls? | ✓ | |||
9 | Was the exposure period of interest long enough to be meaningful? | ✓ | |||
10 | Was appropriate statistical analysis used? | ✓ | |||
UNC: unclear. NA: not applicable. | |||||
Include | Exclude | Seek further info | |||
Overall appraisal | Low risk of bias |
Zagólski O, 2009 [42] | Vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials and caloric tests in infants with congenital rubella. | ||||
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Control Studies (JBI, 2020). | Yes | No | UNC | NA | |
1 | Were the groups comparable other than the presence of disease in cases or the absence of disease in controls? | ✓ | |||
2 | Were cases and controls matched appropriately? | ✓ | |||
3 | Were the same criteria used for identification of cases and controls? | ✓ | |||
4 | Was exposure measured in a standard, valid and reliable way? | ✓ | |||
5 | Was exposure measured in the same way for cases and controls? | ✓ | |||
6 | Were confounding factors identified? | ✓ | |||
7 | Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? | ✓ | |||
8 | Were outcomes assessed in a standard, valid and reliable way for cases and controls? | ✓ | |||
9 | Was the exposure period of interest long enough to be meaningful? | ✓ | |||
10 | Was appropriate statistical analysis used? | ✓ | |||
UNC: unclear. NA: not applicable. | |||||
Include | Exclude | Seek further info | |||
Overall appraisal | Low risk of bias |
References
- Angeli, S. Value of Vestibular Testing in Young Children with Sensorineural Hearing Loss. Arch. Otolaryngol.–Head Neck Surg. 2003, 129, 478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maes, L.; De Kegel, A.; Van Waelvelde, H.; Dhooge, I. Rotatory and Collic Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potential Testing in Normal-Hearing and HearingImpaired Children. Ear Hear. 2014, 35, e21–e32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Oyewumi, M.; Wolter, N.E.; Heon, E.; Gordon, K.A.; Papsin, B.C.; Cushing, S.L. Using Balance Function to Screen for Vestibular Impairment in Children with 55 Sensorineural Hearing Loss and Cochlear Implants. Otol. Neurotol. 2016, 37, 926–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Martens, S.; Dhooge, I.; Dhondt, C.; Leyssens, L.; Sucaet, M.; Vanaudenaerde, S.; Rombaut, L.; Maes, L. Vestibular Infant Screening–Flanders: The implementation of a standard vestibular screening protocol for hearing-impaired children in Flanders. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 2019, 120, 196–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gadsbøll, E.; Erbs, A.W.; Hougaard, D.D. Prevalence of abnormal vestibular responses in children with sensorineural hearing loss. European Arch. OtoRhino-Laryngol. 2022, 279, 4695–4707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiener-Vacher, S.R. Vestibular disorders in children. Int. J. Audiol. 2008, 47, 578–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cushing, S.L.; Papsin, B.C.; Rutka, J.A.; James, A.L.; Gordon, K.A. Evidence of Vestibular and Balance Dysfunction in Children With Profound Sensorineural Hearing Loss Using Cochlear Implants. Laryngoscope 2008, 118, 1814–1823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Santos, T.G.T.; Venosa, A.R.; Sampaio, A.L.L. Association between Hearing Loss and Vestibular Disorders: A Review of the Interference of Hearing in the Balance. Int. J. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2015, 4, 173–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, A.; Heet, H.; Guggenheim, D.S.; Lim, M.; Garg, B.; Bao, M.; Smith, S.L.; Garrison, D.; Raynor, E.M.; Lee, J.W.; et al. A Systematic 56 Review on the Association Between Vestibular Dysfunction and Balance Performance in Children With Hearing Loss. Ear Hear. 2021, 43, 712–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Verbecque, E.; Marijnissen, T.; De Belder, N.; Van Rompaey, V.; Boudewyns, A.; Van de Heyning, P.; Vereeck, L.; Hallemans, A. Vestibular (dys)function in children with sensorineural hearing loss: A systematic review. Int. J. Audiol. 2017, 56, 361–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schraders, M.; Oostrik, J.; Huygen, P.L.M.; Strom, T.M.; van Wijk, E.; Kunst, H.P.M.; Hoefsloot, L.H.; Cremers, C.W.R.J.; Admiraal, R.J.C.; Kremer, H. Mutations in PTPRQ Are a Cause of Autosomal-Recessive Nonsyndromic Hearing Impairment DFNB84 and Associated with Vestibular Dysfunction. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2010, 86, 604–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gioacchini, F.M.; Alicandri-Ciufelli, M.; Kaleci, S.; Magliulo, G.; Re, M. Prevalence and diagnosis of vestibular disorders in children: A review. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 2014, 78, 718–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsukada, K.; Usami, S. Vestibular nerve deficiency and vestibular function in children with unilateral hearing loss caused by cochlear nerve deficiency. Acta OtoLaryngologica 2021, 141, 835–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zuniga, M.G.; Dinkes, R.E.; Davalos-Bichara, M.; Carey, J.P.; Schubert, M.C.; King, W.M.; Walston, J.; Agrawal, Y. Association Between Hearing Loss and Saccular Dysfunction in Older Individuals. Otol. Neurotol. 2012, 33, 1586–1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maudoux, A.; Vitry, S.; El-Amraoui, A. Vestibular Deficits in Deafness: Clinical Presentation, Animal Modeling, and Treatment Solutions. Front. Neurol. 2022, 13, 816534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Martens, S.; Dhooge, I.; Dhondt, C.; Vanaudenaerde, S.; Sucaet, M.; Rombaut, L.; Boudewyns, A.; Desloovere, C.; Janssens de Varebeke, S.; Vinck, A.-S.; et al. Vestibular Infant Screening (VIS)–Flanders: Results after 1.5 years of vestibular screening in hearing-impaired children. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 21011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kaga, K. Vestibular compensation in infants and children with congenital and acquired vestibular loss in both ears. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 1999, 49, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Singh, A.; Raynor, E.M.; Lee, J.W.; Smith, S.L.; Heet, H.; Garrison, D.; Wrigley, J.; Kaylie, D.M.; Riska, K.M. Vestibular Dysfunction and Gross Motor Milestone Acquisition in Children With Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review. Otolaryngol.–Head Neck Surg. 2021, 165, 493–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shall, M.S. The Importance of Saccular Function to Motor Development in Children with Hearing Impairments. Int. J. Oto-laryngol. 2009, 2009, 972565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marinho, A.C.A.; Pereira, E.C.d.S.; Torres, K.K.C.; Miranda, A.M.; Ledesma, A.L.L. Evaluation of the Newborn Hearing Program. Rev. Saude Publica 2020, 54, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duarte, D.S.B.; Cabral, A.M.D.L.; Britto, D.B.L.D.A. Vestibular assessment in children aged zero to twelve years: An integrative review. Braz. J. Otorhinolaryngol. 2022, 88, S212–S224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Peters, M.D.J.; Godfrey, C.; McInerney, P.; Munn, Z.; Tricco, A.C.; Khalil, H. Scoping Reviews (2020). In JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis; Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., Porritt, K., Pilla, B., Jordan, Z., Eds.; JBI: Adelaide, Australia, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.J.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al. 57 PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- University College Cork. Code of Research Conduct Version. 2021. Available online: https://www.ucc.ie/en/media/research/researchatucc/researchsupports/researchintegrity/UCCCodeofResearchConductV2.4-approved14thSeptember2021.pdf (accessed on 23 February 2025).
- CDC. Positive Parenting Tips: Infants (0–1 Years) [Internet]. Child Development; CDC: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2024. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/child-development/positive-parenting-tips/infants.html (accessed on 23 February 2025).
- JBI. Critical Appraisal Tools. 2020. Available online: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools (accessed on 23 February 2025).
- Akrich, S.; de Oliveira, E.P.; Favrot-Meunier, C.; Rebichon, C.; de Clerck, A.; Ettori, S.; Rouillon, I.; Prang, I.; Loundon, N. Analysis of specific risk factors of neurodevelopmental disorder in hearing-impaired infants under ten months of age: “EnTNDre” an opening research stemming from a transdisciplinary partnership. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 2023, 166, 111453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhondt, C.; Maes, L.; Rombaut, L.; Martens, S.; Vanaudenaerde, S.; Van Hoecke, H.; De Leenheer, E.; Dhooge, I. Vestibular Function in Children With a Congenital Cytomegalovirus Infection: 3 Years of Follow-Up. Ear Hear. 2021, 42, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhondt, C.; Maes, L.; Martens, S.; Vanaudenaerde, S.; Rombaut, L.; Sucaet, M.; Keymeulen, A.; Van Hoecke, H.; De Leenheer, E.; Dhooge, I. Predicting Early Vestibular and Motor Function in Congenital Cytomegalovirus Infection. Laryngoscope 2022, 133, 1757–1765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhondt, C.; Maes, L.; Emmely Van Acker Martens, S.; Vanaudenaerde, S.; Rombaut, L.; De Cuyper, E.; Van Hoecke, H.; De Leenheer, E.; Dhooge, I. Vestibular Follow-up Program for Congenital Cytomegalovirus Based on 6 Years of Longitudinal Data Collection. Ear Hear. 2023, 44, 1354–1366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Maes, L.; De Kegel, A.; Van Waelvelde, H.; De Leenheer, E.; Van Hoecke, H.; Goderis, J.; Dhooge, I. Comparison of the Motor Performance and Vestibular Function in Infants with a Congenital Cytomegalovirus Infection or a Connexin 26 Mutation. Ear Hear. 2017, 38, e49–e56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Martens, S.; Dhooge, I.; Dhondt, C.; Vanaudenaerde, S.; Sucaet, M.; Van Hoecke, H.; De Leenheer, E.; Rombaut, L.; Boudewyns, A.; Desloovere, C.; et al. Three Years of Vestibular Infant Screening in Infants With Sensorineural Hearing Loss. Pediatrics 2022, 150, e2021055340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Martens, S.; Maes, L.; Dhondt, C.; Vanaudenaerde, S.; Sucaet, M.; De Leenheer, E.; Van Hoecke, H.; Van Hecke, R.; Rombaut, L.; Dhooge, I. Vestibular Infant Screening–Flanders: What is the Most Appropriate Vestibular Screening Tool in Hearing-Impaired Children? Ear Hear. 2023, 44, 385–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shen, J.; Wang, L.; Ma, X.; Chen, Z.; Chen, J.; Wang, X.; He, K.; Wang, W.; Sun, J.; Zhang, Q.; et al. Cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials in 3-month-old infants: Comparative characteristics and feasibility for infant vestibular screening. Front. Neurol. 2022, 13, 992392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sheykholesami Kaga Megerian, C.A.; Arnold, J.O. Vestibular-Evoked Myogenic Potentials in Infancy and Early Childhood. Laryngoscope 2005, 115, 1440–1444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Teschner, M.; Neuburger, J.; Gockeln, R.; Lenarz, T.; Lesinski-Schiedat, A. ‘Minimized rotational vestibular testing’ as a screening procedure detecting vestibular areflexy in deaf children: Screening cochlear implant candidates for Usher syndrome Type I. Eur. Arch. Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2008, 265, 759–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verrecchia, L.; Karpeta, N.; Westin, M.; Johansson, A.; Aldenklint, S.; Brantberg, K.; Duan, M. Methodological aspects of testing vestibular evoked myogenic potentials in infants at universal hearing screening program. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 17225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Verrecchia, L.; Galle Barrett, K.; Karltorp, E. The feasibility, validity and reliability of a child friendly vestibular assessment in infants and children candidates to cochlear implant. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 2020, 135, 110093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zagólski, O. Vestibular System in Infants With Hereditary Nonsyndromic Deafness. Otol. Neurotol. 2007, 28, 1053–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zagólski, O. Vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials and caloric stimulation in infants with congenital cytomegalovirus infection. J. Laryngol. Otol. 2008, 122, 574–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zagólski, O. An acoustically evoked short latency negative response in profound hearing loss infants. Auris Nasus Larynx 2008, 35, 328–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zagólski, O. Vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials and caloric tests in infants with congenital rubella. B-ENT 2009, 5, 7–12. [Google Scholar]
- Fife, T.D.; Colebatch, J.G.; Kerber, K.A.; Brantberg, K.; Strupp, M.; Lee, H.; Walker, M.F.; Ashman, E.; Fletcher, J.; Callaghan, B.; et al. Practice guideline: Cervical and ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potential testing. Neurology 2017, 89, 2288–2296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janky, K.L.; Thomas, M.L.A.; High, R.R.; Schmid, K.K.; Ogun, O.A. Predictive Factors for Vestibular Loss in Children with Hearing Loss. Am. J. Audiol. 2018, 27, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frejo, L.; Giegling, I.; Teggi, R.; Lopez-Escamez, J.A.; Rujescu, D. Genetics of vestibular disorders: Pathophysiological insights. J. Neurol. 2016, 263 (Suppl. S1), 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peusner, K.D.; Bell, N.M.; Hirsch, J.C.; Beraneck, M.; Popratiloff, A. Understanding the Pathophysiology of Congenital Vestibular Disorders: Current Challenges and Future Directions. Front. Neurol. 2021, 12, 708395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Author, Year of Publication | Geographical Characteristics | Subject Source | Time Range of Data Collection | Study Design | Total Number of Subjects (n) | Age of Subjects/Cases |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Martens et al., 2019 * [4] | Ghent, East Flanders, Belgium | UNHSP Reference Centres, Flanders | November 2017–September 2021 | Prospective cohort and interventional | Approx. 400 over 4-year period | 6 m |
Martens et al., 2020 * [16] | Ghent, East Flanders, Belgium | UNHSP Reference Centres, Flanders | June 2018–February 2020 | Prospective cohort and interventional | 191 | 6.8 m ± 1.8 m |
Akrich et al., 2023 [27] | Nantes, France | Oto-Rhino-Laryngologie pédiatrique, Chirurgie Cervico-Faciale, Necker Childrens Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France | May 2018–February 2021 | Observational cohort | 22 | 3–10 m |
Dhondt et al., 2021 [28] | Ghent, Belgium | Ghent University Hospital | June 2016 prospectively | Prospective and longitudinal | 93 | 7 m–4.4 years |
Dhondt et al., 2022 [29] | Ghent, Belgium | Ghent University Hospital | NR | Prospective and longitudinal | 169 | Mean: 8.9 m ± 3.27 m |
Dhondt et al., 2023 [30] | Ghent, Belgium | Ghent University Hospital | June 2016–November 2021 | Longitudinal cohort | 185 | Mean: 3.2 years, SD 1.6 years, range 0.5–6.7 years |
Maes et al., 2017 [31] | Flanders, Belgium | Flemish CMV Registry | January 2007 prospectively | Cross-sectional | 40 Cx26: 8 cCMV: 24 Controls: 8 | Mean: 6.7 m Range: 4.8–8.9 m |
Martens et al., 2022 * [32] | Ghent, East Flanders, Belgium | UNHSP Reference Centres, Flanders | June 2018–June 2021 | Prospective cohort and interventional | 254 | 7.4 m ± 2.4 m |
Martens et al., 2023 * [33] | Ghent, East Flanders, Belgium | UNHSP Reference Centres, Flanders | November 2017–September 2021 | Longitudinal cohort | 71 | 6.7 m ± 1.6 m |
Shen et al., 2022 [34] | Shanghai, China | Diagnosis and Treatment Centre of Hearing Impairment and Vertigo in Xinhua Hospital | May 2021– May 2022 | Case control and feasibility | 49 Cases: 29 Controls: 20 | 3 m |
Sheykholesami et al., 2005 [35] | Ohio, USA | Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Case Western University Hospital of Cleveland, Ohio | NR | Prospective cohort | 17 Cases: 5 Controls: 12 | Mean: 2.3 m |
Teschner et al., 2008 [36] | Hannover, Germany | Department of Otorhinolaryngology of the Medical University, Hannover | March 2004 –July 2005 | Case study | 137 Controls: 20 Cases: 117 | 10 m–10 years |
Verrecchia et al., 2019 [37] | Sweden | UNHSP—Audiology and Neurotology Unit, Ear Nose and Throat Patient Area, Trauma and Reparative Medicine Theme, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden | 2015–2016 (14 months) | Feasibility | 50 | Mean: 2.3 ± 1.9 m Median: 2 m Range: 1–6 m Mode: 1 m |
Verrecchia et al., 2020 [38] | Sweden | UNHSP—Audiology and Neurotology Unit, Ear Nose and Throat Patient Area, Trauma and Reparative Medicine Theme, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden | 2016–2017 (14 months) | Quantitative cross-sectional | 35 | 4–79 m |
Zagólski O, 2007 [39] | Kraków, Poland | Referred from neontologic department to a tertiary referral centre | NR | Case control | 58 Cases: 18 Controls: 40 | 3 m |
Zagolski O, 2008a [40] | Kraków, Poland | Department of Otorhinolaryngology, ‘Medicina’ Diagnostic and Therapeutic Medical Centre | NR | Case control | 66 Cases: 26 Controls: 40 | 3 m |
Zagólski O, 2008b [41] | Kraków, Poland | Department of Otorhinolaryngology, ‘Medicina’ Diagnostic and Therapeutic Medical Centre | NR | Case control | 32 Cases: 17 Controls: 15 | 3 m |
Zagolski O, 2009 [42] | Kraków, Poland | Department of Otorhinolaryngology, ‘Medicina’ Diagnostic and Therapeutic Medical Centre | NR | Case control | 54 Cases: 14 Controls: 40 | 3 m |
Author, Year | Title of Article | Bias |
---|---|---|
Martens et al., 2019 * [4] | Vestibular Infant Screening—Flanders: The implementation of a standard vestibular screening protocol for hearing-impaired children in Flanders | Low |
Martens et al., 2020 * [16] | Vestibular Infant Screening (VIS)-Flanders: results after 1.5 years of vestibular screening in hearing-impaired children | Low |
Akrich et al., 2023 [27] | Analysis of specific risk factors of neurodevelopmental disorder in hearing-impaired infants under ten months of age: “EnTNDre” an opening research stemming from a transdisciplinary partnership | Moderate |
Dhondt et al., 2021 [28] | Vestibular Function in Children with a Congenital Cytomegalovirus Infection: 3 Years of Follow-Up | Low–moderate |
Dhondt et al., 2022 [29] | Predicting Early Vestibular and Motor Function in Congenital Cytomegalovirus Infection | Low |
Dhondt et al., 2023 [30] | Vestibular Follow-up Program for Congenital Cytomegalovirus Based on 6 Years of Longitudinal Data Collection | Low |
Maes et al., 2017 [31] | Comparison of the Motor Performance and Vestibular Function in Infants with a Congenital Cytomegalovirus Infection or a Connexin 26 Mutation: A Preliminary Study | Low |
Martens et al., 2022 * [32] | Three Years of Vestibular Infant Screening in Infants with Sensorineural Hearing Loss | Low |
Martens et al., 2023 * [33] | Vestibular Infant Screening-Flanders: What is the Most Appropriate Vestibular Screening Tool in Hearing- Impaired Children? | Low |
Shen et al., 2022 [34] | Cervical vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials in 3-month-old infants: Comparative characteristics and feasibility for infant vestibular screening | Low–moderate |
Sheykholesami et al., 2005 [35] | Vestibular-evoked Myogenic Potentials in Infancy and Early Childhood | Low |
Teschner et al., 2008 [36] | “Minimized rotational vestibular testing” as a screening procedure detecting vestibular areflexy in deaf children: screening cochlear implant candidates for Usher syndrome type I | Low |
Verrecchia et al., 2019 [37] | Methodological aspects of testing vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials in infants at universal hearing screening program | Low–moderate |
Verrecchia et al., 2020 [38] | The feasibility, validity and reliability of a child friendly vestibular assessment in infants and children candidates to cochlear implant | Low |
Zagólski O, 2007 [39] | Vestibular system in infants with hereditary nonsyndromic deafness | Low |
Zagólski O, 2008a [40] | Vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials and caloric stimulation in infants with congenital cytomegalovirus infection | Low |
Zagólski O, 2008b [41] | An acoustically evoked short latency negative response in profound hearing loss infants | Low |
Zagolski O, 2009 [42] | Vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials and caloric tests in infants with congenital rubella | Low |
Author, Year of Publication | Aetiology of SNHL (n) | Method of SNHL Diagnosis | Laterality of SNHL (n) | Degree of SNHL (n) | Cochlear Implantation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Martens et al., 2019 * [4] | Congenital | AABR (MAICO BERAphone) | NA | NA | NA |
Martens et al., 2020 * [16] | Congenital and early onset < 10 m | Click-ABR, high-frequency tympanometry (1000 Hz), TE/DPOAEs. Equipment manufacturer unknown. | Unilateral: 57/169 (33.7%) Bilateral: 112/169 (66.3%) | Bilateral: mild–moderate (29%), severe–profound (37.3%) Unilateral: mild–moderate (10.6%), severe–profound (23.1%) | 3 |
Akrich et al., 2023 [27] | Congenital, connexin 26 gene mutation, CHARGE, cCMV, Usher syndrome, GATA3 mutation, LHPL5 mutation | NR | Bilateral | Moderate–profound | Prior to cochlear implantation |
Dhondt et al., 2021 [28] | cCMV and congenital SNHL: 3 (11 m, 9 m, and 10 m old) | Average click/pure tone ABR across 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz. TEOAEs, otomicroscopial inspection, and/or tympanometry. Equipment manufacturer unknown. | Unilateral: 0 Bilateral: 3 | 11 m infant: bilateral profound progressive 9 m infant: left profound, right moderate stable 10 m infant: bilateral profound maximal loss | 11 m infant: right CI at 17 m. Left CI at 14 m. 9 m infant: left CI 10 m. 10 m infant: bilateral CI at 11 m. |
Dhondt et al., 2022 [29] | cCMV | <6 m: Click-ABR during natural sleep. >6 m: Click-ABR under general anaesthetic or melatonin-induced sleep. Equipment manufacturer unknown. | Unilateral: 14 Bilateral: 10 | Unilateral: 87.9 dBnHL ± 18.88 Bilateral: 79 dBnHL ± 23.78– 95 dBnHL ± 10.80. | At time of vestibular assessment, 3.6% of infants had cochlear implants (4 unilateral, 2 bilateral). |
Dhondt et al., 2023 [30] | cCMV | Average click/pure tone ABR across 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz. TEOAEs, otomicroscopial inspection, and/or tympanometry. Equipment manufacturer unknown. | Unilateral: 18/30 (60%) Bilateral: 12/30 (40%) | Mild: 2/42 (4.8%) Moderate: 6/42 (14.3%) Severe: 4/42 (9.5%) Profound: 30/42 (71.4%) | 20/42 (47.6%) |
Maes et al., 2017 [31] | cCMV or Connexin 26 mutation | AABR (Natus ALGO) | Unilateral (cCMV): 4 Bilateral (cCMV): 4 Unilateral (Cx26): 0 Bilateral (Cx26): 8 | Mean (dBnHL) cCMV right: 80 cCMV left: 68.8 Cx26 right: 91.3 Cx26 left: 88.1 | None |
Martens et al., 2022 * [32] | Congenital and early onset < 10 m | Click-ABR, high-frequency tympanometry (1000 Hz), TE/DPOAEs. Equipment manufacturer unknown. | Unilateral: 93/254 Bilateral: 161/254 | Bilateral: mild– moderate (27.6%), severe–profound (35.8%) Unilateral: mild– moderate (11.8%), severe–profound (24.8%) | NR |
Martens et al., 2023 * [33] | Congenital and early onset < 10 m | Click-ABR, high-frequency tympanometry (1000 Hz), TE/DPOAEs. Equipment manufacturer unknown. | Unilateral: 29/71 Bilateral: 42/71 | Bilateral: mild– moderate (22.5%), severe–profound (36.6%) Unilateral: mild– moderate (12.7%), severe–profound (28.2%) | 27/71 |
Shen et al., 2022 [34] | Congenital | Normal tympanogram-referred DPOAE (<4/6 bands), elevated air Click-ABR threshold (>30 dBnHL), AC and BC Click-ABR threshold gap within 10 dBnHL; 2000 and 4000 Hz TB-ABR, ASSR. Equipment: Interacoustics AT235H Middle Ear Analyzer, Eclipse, Interacoustics. | Unilateral: 3/17 Bilateral: 14/17 | Mild–profound | NR |
Sheykholesami et al., 2005 [35] | Congenital | BOA, COR, DPOAE, ABR Equipment manufacturer unknown. | NR | NR | NR |
Teschner et al., 2008 [36] | Usher syndrome Type 1 | BERA. Profound > 100 dB Equipment manufacturer unknown. | NR | Profound | Pre-cochlear implantation |
Verrecchia et al., 2019 [37] | Congenital and early onset | Pathological response at AABR or ABR, corresponding to a HL of ≥35 dB HL for AC stimuli. Equipment: Eclipse, Interacoustics. | Unilateral: 11/50 Bilateral: 7/50 | NR | NR |
Verrecchia et al., 2020 [38] | Congenital, LVAS, nerve atresia, premature, Waardenburg syndrome | NR | Both unilateral and bilateral CI referrals included. No other information reported. | NR | Pre-cochlear implantation |
Zagólski O, 2007 [39] | Autosomal recessive hereditary nonsyndromic deafness | Genetically diagnosed by geneticist and otoscopy, tympanometry, click-evoked otoacoustic emissions and ABR (2000–4000 Hz) Equipment: Centor-C ABR machine (Racia-Alvar, France). | Bilateral | Moderate SNHL (40–80 dBHL): 10 Severe SNHL (80 dBHL): 8 | NR |
Zagólski O, 2008a [40] | Congenital CMV | Otoscopy, tympanometry, click-evoked otoacoustic emissions and ABR (broadband 2000–4000 Hz clicks). Equipment: Centor-C ABR machine (Racia-Alvar, France). | Bilateral | Profound | NR |
Zagólski O, 2008b [41] | Congenital | Otoscopy, tympanometry, ABR/ASNR broadband 2 KHz and 4 KHz clicks, and 500 Hz 80–110 SPL tone-burst during sleep. Equipment: Centor-C ABR machine (Racia-Alvar, France). | Bilateral | Profound | NR |
Zagolski O, 2009 [42] | Congenital rubella | Otoscopy, click-evoked OAEs, ABR (BC, broadband clicks compared with AC ABR). Equipment: Centor-C ABR machine (Racia-Alvar, France). | NR | 20–80 dBHL: 3 >80 dBHL: 6 | NR |
Author, Year of Publication | Age of Vestibular Assessment | Vestibular Reflex | Vestibular Tests and Organ (Objective 1) | Vestibular Protocol (Objective 1) | Normative Cut-off Values | Quality of Vestibular Tests (Objective 3) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Martens et al., 2019 [4] | 6 m | VCR/VSR | cVEMPs: saccule and inferior portion of vestibular nerve | Stimulus: BC 500 Hz TB (1-2-1 ms) at 59 dBHL, 5 Hz repetition rate | Abnormal: absent cVEMP response | NA |
Martens et al., 2020 [16] | 6 m | VCR/VSR | cVEMPs: saccule and inferior portion of vestibular nerve | Stimulus: BC 500 Hz TB (1-2-1 ms) at 59 dBHL, 5 Hz repetition rate | Abnormal: Inconclusive OR Abnormal (<1.3 rectified wave amplitude) OR Absent | Sensitivity: NR Specificity: NR |
Akrich et al., 2023 [27] | <10 m | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
Dhondt et al., 2021 [28] | 6 m and 12 m | VOR | vHIT: lateral SCC | Amplitude: 10–20 degrees Peak velocity: 150’/s | Abnormal: below 0.4 | Sensitivity: 87% Specificity: NR |
VOR | Rotary Test: mid-frequency lateral SCC | Stimulus: sinusoidal harmonic acceleration at 0.01, 0,04, and 0.16 Hz. Peak velocity: 60’/s | Abnormal: below 9, 19, and 22% at specified frequencies | Sensitivity: NR Specificity: NR | ||
VCR/VSR | cVEMP: saccule and inferior portion of vestibular nerve | Stimulus: BC linear 500 Hz tone bursts (1-2-1 ms) at 59 dBHL, 5 Hz repetition rate Amplification: 5000 times Filter: 10–1500 Hz bandpass | Abnormal: absent cVEMP response | Sensitivity: NR Specificity: NR | ||
Dhondt et al., 2022 [29] | 8.9 m ± 3.27 m | VOR | vHIT: lateral SCC (high frequency) | Amplitude: 10–20 degrees Peak velocity: 150’/s | Mild dysfunction: 0.4–0.7 Severe dysfunction: below 0.4 | Vestibular assessment and congenital SNHL: Sensitivity: 35% Specificity: 91% Vestibular assessment and early acquired SNHL: Sensitivity: 50% Specificity: 91% |
VCR/VSR | cVEMP: saccule and inferior portion of vestibular nerve | Stimulus: BC linear 500 Hz tone-bursts (1-2-1 ms) at 59 dBHL, 5 Hz repetition rate Amplification: 5000 times Filter: 10–1500 Hz bandpass | Mild dysfunction: interpeak amplitude: below 0.3 (Bio-Logic) or 1.3 (Neuro-Audio) Severe dysfunction: no reproducible response | |||
Dhondt et al., 2023 [30] | 6–12 m | VOR | vHIT: lateral SCC (high frequency) | Amplitude: 10–20 degrees. Peak velocity: 150’/s | Mild dysfunction: 0.4–0.7 Severe dysfunction: below 0.4 | Sensitivity: NR Specificity: NR |
VCR/VSR | cVEMP: saccule and inferior portion of vestibular nerve | Stimulus: BC linear 500 Hz tone-bursts (1-2-1 ms) at 59 dBHL, 5 Hz repetition rate Amplification: 5000 times Filter: 10–1500 Hz bandpass | Mild dysfunction: interpeak amplitude: below 0.3 (Bio-Logic) or 1.3 (Neuro-Audio) Severe dysfunction: no reproducible response | Sensitivity: NR Specificity: NR | ||
Maes et al., 2017 [31] | 4.8–8.9 m | VCR/VSR | cVEMPs: saccule and inferior portion of vestibular nerve | Stimulus: BC linear 500 Hz TB (1-2-1 ms) at 59 dBHL, 5 Hz repetition rate Amplification: 5000 times Filter: 10–1500 Hz bandpass | Abnormal: absent cVEMP response | Sensitivity: NR Specificity: NR |
Martens et al., 2022 [32] | 6 m | VCR/VSR | cVEMPs: saccule and inferior portion of vestibular nerve | Stimulus: BC 500 Hz TB (1-2-1 ms) at 59 dBHL, 5 Hz repetition rate | Abnormal: Inconclusive OR Abnormal (<1.3 rectified wave amplitude) OR Absent | Sensitivity: NR Specificity: NR |
Martens et al., 2023 [33] | 6 m | VCR/VSR | cVEMPs: saccule and inferior portion of vestibular nerve | Stimulus: BC 500 Hz TB (1-2-1 ms) at 59 dBHL, 5 Hz repetition rate | Abnormal: Inconclusive OR Abnormal (<1.3 rectified wave amplitude) OR Absent | Sensitivity: NR Specificity: NR |
6–9 m | VOR | vHIT: horizontal SCC (high frequency) | Amplitude: 10–20’ Peak velocity: 150–250’/s (horizontal plane) and 100–200’/s (vertical plane) | Abnormal: VOR gain <0.7. Borderline results 0.6–0.7 considered abnormal if replicated during prospective repeat test | Sensitivity: NR Specificity: NR | |
NR (young children) | VOR | Rotary Test: mid-frequency lateral SCC | Stimulus: sinusoidal harmonic acceleration at 0.01, 0,04, and 0.16 Hz Peak velocity: 60’/s | Abnormal: below 9, 19, and 22% at specified frequencies | Sensitivity: NR Specificity: NR | |
Shen et al., 2022 [34] | 3 m | VCR/VSR | cVEMPs: saccule and inferior portion of vestibular nerve | Stimulus: TB-500 Hz (rise/fall 1 ms, plateau time 2 ms) at 132 dBpeSPL (105 dBnHL), repetition rate 5 Hz. BC conductor at 60 dBnHL, 5.1 Hz stimulus rate Minimum sweeps: 50 (twice) Amplified and bandpass: 10–3000 Hz Window: −20–80 ms | Normal: the mean + 2 SD of each parameter in normal hearing infants defined as the upper-normal limit Absent: response or value exceeding the normal range was considered as abnormal | Sensitivity: NR Specificity: NR |
Sheykholesami et al., 2005 [35] | 2.3 m | VCR/VSR | cVEMPs: saccule and inferior portion of vestibular nerve | Stimulus: AC and BC short TB (500 Hz at 95 dBnHL) Rise/fall time: 1 ms Plateau: 2 ms Amplified and bandpass: 20 Hz to 2 KHz Window: 100 ms | Abnormal: absent cVEMP response | Sensitivity: NR Specificity: NR |
Teschner et al., 2008 [36] | 0–12 m | VOR | Minimized Rotational Vestibular Testing: mid- frequency SCC | Chair acceleration: 16’/s for 8 s. Chair constant rotational velocity: 150’/s for 20 s VNG/ENG not used | Abnormal: no post-rotational nystagmus observed | Sensitivity: NR Specificity: NR |
Verrecchia et al., 2019 [37] | 2.3 ± 1.9 months (median: 2; range: 1–6; mode: 1). | VCR/VSR | cVEMPs: saccule and inferior portion of vestibular nerve | Stimulus: BC 500 Hz TB at 50 dBnHL (119 dBFL), 2 ms rise/plateau/fall. Repetition rate: 5.1/s Amplification: 2000 gain Filter: bandpass (10–750 Hz) Window: −20–80 ms Sweeps: 120 | Normal: positive–negative EMG deflection with a latency of 12–17 ms for the first peak (p1) and 20–25 ms for the second peak (n1) after stimulus Abnormal: absent repeatable responses | Amplitude cut-off: Sensitivity: 87% Specificity: 89% Scaled amplitude cut-off: Sensitivity: 94% Specificity: 96% |
Verrecchia et al., 2020 [38] | 3–84 m | VOR | HIT: horizontal SCC (high frequency) | Child sitting on parent’s lap and head rotated 20–30 degrees to either side while sticker is on examiner’s nose to promote gaze fixation | Directly observing nystagmus | Sensitivity: NR Specificity: NR |
VOR | vHIT: horizontal SCC (high frequency) | Turns child’s head to either side in jerk motions at 2–30 degrees. Three–five trials per side | Gain values <0.75 were related to vestibular dysfunction | Sensitivity: NR Specificity: NR | ||
VCR/VSR | cVEMPs: saccule and inferior portion of vestibular nerve | Stimulus: BC 500 Hz TB at 50 dBnHL (119 dBFL), 2 ms rise/plateau/fall. Repetition rate: 5.1/s Amplification: 2000 gain Filter: bandpass (10–750 Hz) Window: −20–80 ms Sweeps: 120 | Normal: positive–negative EMG deflection with a latency of 12–17 ms for the first peak (p1) and 20–25 ms for the second peak (n1) after stimulus Abnormal: absent repeatable responses | Sensitivity: NR Specificity: NR | ||
VOR | Mini Ice Water Calorics: lateral SCC | 6–10 °C water in canal for 10 s while child is lying down and is then raised to supine position and eye movements observe twice in dark using VOS mask for 5–10 s, two repetitions | Normal: 3 consecutive caloric nystagmus beats observed by VOS under 30–90 s after irrigation and reproduced once more after interval of visual fixation Abnormal: absent caloric nystagmus reproducible on two test repetitions | Sensitivity: NR Specificity: NR | ||
Zagólski O, 2007 [39] | 3 m | VOR | Calorics: lateral SCC | Stimulus: 20’C cold water irrigation (20 mL) for 20 s | Both sides compared for weakness. Nystagmus observed directly. Normal: Nystagmus latency: 5–15 s. Duration: 60–70 s. The frequency of bytes: 2–3/s. Abnormal: latency and/or duration differed from normal range by >30% | Sensitivity: 83.3% Specificity: 66.6% Likelihood ratio: 83.3% |
3 m | VCR/VSR | cVEMPs: saccule and inferior portion of vestibular nerve | Stimulus: AC TB presented at 500 Hz (frequency) at 90 dBSPL in ipsilateral ear, no masking in contralateral ear Repetition rate: 5 Hz (1 ms rise/fall rate), plateau time (2 ms) | Abnormal: absent cVEMP response | Sensitivity: 100% Specificity: 100% | |
Zagólski O, 2008a [40] | 3 m | VOR | Calorics: lateral SCC | Stimulus: 20’C cold water irrigation (20 mL) for 20 s | Both sides compared for weakness. Nystagmus observed directly. Normal: Nystagmus latency: 5–15 s. Duration: 60–70 s. The frequency of bytes: 2–3/s. Abnormal: Latency and/or duration differed from normal range by >30% | Sensitivity: NR Specificity: NR |
3 m | VCR/VSR | cVEMPs: saccule and inferior portion of vestibular nerve | Stimulus: air conduction TB presented at 500 Hz at 90 dBSPL in ipsilateral ear, no masking in contralateral ear Repetition rate: 5 Hz (1 ms rise/fall rate), plateau time (2 ms) | Abnormal: absent cVEMP response | Sensitivity: NR Specificity: NR | |
Zagólski O, 2008b [41] | 3 m | VOR | Calorics: lateral SCC | Stimulus: 20’C cold water irrigation (20 mL) for 20 s | Both sides compared for weakness. Nystagmus observed directly Normal: 5–15 s latency and 60–70 s duration. Frequency of beats from 2–3/s Abnormal: differed from normal response more than 30% for time response or number of beats | Sensitivity: NR Specificity: NR |
VCR/VSR | cVEMPs: saccule and inferior portion of vestibular nerve | Stimulus: 75 responses of air conduction TB presented at 500 Hz at 90 dBSPL in ipsilateral ear, no masking in contralateral ear. Repetition rate: 5 Hz (1 ms rise/fall rate), plateau time (2 ms) | Abnormal: absent cVEMP response | Sensitivity: NR Specificity: NR | ||
Zagólski O, 2009 [42] | 3 m | VOR | Calorics: lateral SCC | Stimulus: 20’C cold water irrigation (20 mL) for 20 s | Both sides compared for weakness. Nystagmus observed directly. Normal: Nystagmus latency: 5–15 s. Duration: 60–70 s. The frequency of bytes: 2–3/s. Abnormal: latency and/or duration differed from normal range by >30% | Sensitivity: NR Specificity: NR |
3 m | VCR/VSR | cVEMPs: saccule and inferior portion of vestibular nerve | Stimulus: AC TB presented at 500 Hz (frequency) at 90 dBSPL in ipsilateral ear, no masking in contralateral ear Repetition rate: 5 Hz (1 ms rise/fall rate), plateau time (2 ms) | Abnormal: absent cVEMP response | Sensitivity: NR Specificity: NR |
Test Specifications | Recording | Technique and Infant Position | |
---|---|---|---|
Dhondt et al., 2022 [29] | Equipment: Bio-Logic Navigator-Pro platform, Mundelein, IL, USA and Neuro-Audio version 2010, Neurosoft, Ivanovo, Russia. EMG delivery algorithm: NR Bone-conducted stimuli: linear 500 Hz tone-burst (1-2-1 ms) at 59 dBHL (129 dBFL) and 5 Hz stimulus repetition rate. | Electrode array: noninverting electrode placed at midpoint of SCM muscle, inverting electrode 1–2 cm below sternoclavicular junction, ground electrode on forehead. Signal processing: amplification (gain: 5000), bandpass filter (10–1500 Hz). Sweeps: NR | Infant position: supine position on a sloping pillow and stimulated to rotate head sideways using video screen or toys. Technique: NR |
Verrecchia et al., 2019 [37] | Equipment: Radioear B71 bone vibrator device. EMG-driven stimulus delivery algorithm: EMG reference level of 50–150 µVolts and sampled every 100 ms. Once EMG was within this range, new RMS averaging performed over 100 ms before stimulus delivery. EMG recording continued for up to 80 ms post stimulation. VEMP recording window: −20 ms–+80 ms. Process continually repeated for each sweep. Bone-conducted stimuli: tone-burst stimuli presented on the mastoid bone at 500 Hz and 50 dBnHL (119 dBFL), 2 ms rise-plateau-fall configuration, stimulation rate of 5.1/s. | Electrode array: Recordings performed unilaterally. Two inverting electrodes added to belly of two SCMs: non-inverting electrode on manubrium sterni, ground electrode on forehead. Skin prepared with gentle abrasion, maintaining electrode impedance under 10 kΩ. Signal processing: amplification (gain: 2000), bandpass filter (10–750 Hz) within −20–+80 ms recording window. Sweeps: ≥120 sweeps, max. 200 per trial, typically 90–120 s per side. | Infant position: Supine in parent’s arms, head supported on examiner’s hand, awake enough to generate neck muscle activity. Examiner modulated infant’s head support to change SCM activity. Technique: bone conduction transducer held to mastoid region by examiner with lateromedial digital pressure, placed above imaginary antero-posterior line crossing ear canal. |
Zagólski O, 2007 [39] | Equipment: Centor-C ABR machine (Racia-Alvar, France). EMG delivery algorithm: NR Air-conducted tone-burst stimuli: averaged from 75 responses at 500 Hz at 90 dBSPL, no contralateral masking noise, repetition rate of 5 Hz and rise-and-fall time of 1 ms and plateau time of 2 ms. | Electrode array: Reference electrode placed over upper sternum. Two electrodes placed on symmetric sites on the upper half of both isometrically contracted SCM. Signal processing: NR Sweeps: 75 | Infant position: supine position with muscle contraction obtained by bending the neck slightly backwards and holding in position. Technique: NR |
Author, Year of Publication | Measures of Association (Objective 2) | Vestibular Dysfunction Recorded |
---|---|---|
Martens et al., 2019 [4] | NA | NA |
Martens et al., 2020 [16] | Absent cVEMPs in unilateral/bilateral severe–profound compared to unilateral/bilateral mild–moderate: (p-Value: 0.001)
|
|
Akrich et al., 2023 [27] | 9/22 (40.9%) vestibular dysfunction observed |
|
Dhondt et al., 2021 [28] | Congenital SNHL and vestibular dysfunction
| 11 m infant: right SCC and right saccule dysfunction. 9 m infant: bilateral SCC and saccule dysfunction. 10 m infant: bilateral SCC and saccule dysfunction. |
Dhondt et al., 2022 [29] | Congenital SNHL and vestibular dysfunction
| Laterality
|
Dhondt et al., 2023 [30] |
| NR |
Maes et al., 2017 [31] | cCMV, congenital SNHL, and vestibular dysfunction (n = Absent cVEMP)
| cCMV, congenital SNHL and vestibular dysfunction
|
Martens et al., 2022 [32] | Abnormal cVEMPs in unilateral/bilateral severe–profound compared to unilateral/bilateral mild–moderate: RR (9.8) (p-Value: 0.003)
| Unilateral absent cVEMP responses reported on same side as all subjects with unilateral SNHL (n = 6). Bilateral cVEMP configuration varied in subjects with bilateral SNHL ((unilateral abnormal (n = 2), unilateral absent (n = 2), bilateral abnormal (n = 1) and bilateral absent (n = 2)). |
Martens et al., 2023 [33] | Abnormal cVEMPs
Rotary Test: only feasibility/success calculations made as assessment was more challenging to conduct on infants. |
|
Shen et al., 2022 [34] | Response rate (AC): 62% (SNHL), 88.89% (hearing infants). Response rate (BC): 86.36% (SNHL). No significant difference to hearing infants. IAR ranges of AC and BC in SNHL in upper-normal limit of hearing infants = bilateral vestibular dysfunction is symmetrical in SNHL infants. | NR |
Sheykholesami et al., 2005 [35] | 1/5 subjects with SNHL had absent cVEMPs bilaterally (20%). | NR |
Teschner et al., 2008 [36] | Success rates in 0–12 m: 25/29 successfully (86%). No prevalence rates age segregated. | NR |
Verrecchia et al., 2019 [37] | NR (methodological aspect investigation) | NR |
Verrecchia et al., 2020 [38] | NR (feasibility and reliability investigation) | NR |
Zagólski O, 2007 [39] | Absent cVEMPs recorded bilaterally in 12/18 infants with SNHL. No caloric responses recorded bilaterally in 6/18 infants with SNHL. Degree of semicircular canal impairment was higher in subjects with profound SNHL. | NR |
Zagólski O, 2008a [40] | Absent cVEMPs recorded bilaterally in 8/8 infants with profound SNHL: 15.4% of overall cohort. Absent calorics recorded bilaterally in 8/8 infants with profound SNHL: 15.4% of overall cohort. | NR |
Zagólski O, 2008b [41] | Absent cVEMPs recorded in 22 ears (22/34, 64.7%). Abnormal/absent ASNR recorded in 24 ears (24/34, 70.58%). Absent calorics recorded in 26 ears (26/34, 76.47%). | NR |
Zagólski O, 2009 [42] | Absent cVEMPs reported in 100% of infants with severe–profound SNHL (12/12): 43% of overall cohort. Absent calorics reported in 100% of infants with severe–profound SNHL (12/12): 43% of overall cohort. Statistically signification association between degree of SNHL and vestibular dysfunction (p < 0.001, r = 0.9). | NR |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Farquhar, L.; El Refaie, A. Vestibular Assessment in Infants with Congenital or Early Onset Sensorineural Hearing Loss: Is Neonatal Vestibular Screening Required? A Scoping Review. Audiol. Res. 2025, 15, 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres15020023
Farquhar L, El Refaie A. Vestibular Assessment in Infants with Congenital or Early Onset Sensorineural Hearing Loss: Is Neonatal Vestibular Screening Required? A Scoping Review. Audiology Research. 2025; 15(2):23. https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres15020023
Chicago/Turabian StyleFarquhar, Lauren, and Amr El Refaie. 2025. "Vestibular Assessment in Infants with Congenital or Early Onset Sensorineural Hearing Loss: Is Neonatal Vestibular Screening Required? A Scoping Review" Audiology Research 15, no. 2: 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres15020023
APA StyleFarquhar, L., & El Refaie, A. (2025). Vestibular Assessment in Infants with Congenital or Early Onset Sensorineural Hearing Loss: Is Neonatal Vestibular Screening Required? A Scoping Review. Audiology Research, 15(2), 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres15020023