The Experts below are selected from a list of 99 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Desmond A Nunez - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Rinne Test does the tuning fork position affect the sound amplitude at the ear
Journal of Otolaryngology-head & Neck Surgery, 2016Co-Authors: Oleksandr Butskiy, Murray Hodgson, Desmond A NunezAbstract:Guidelines and text-book descriptions of the Rinne Test advise orienting the tuning fork tines in parallel with the longitudinal axis of the external auditory canal (EAC), presumably to maximise the amplitude of the air conducted sound signal at the ear. Whether the orientation of the tuning fork tines affects the amplitude of the sound signal at the ear in clinical practice has not been previously reported. The present study had two goals: determine if (1) there is clinician variability in tuning fork placement when presenting the air-conduction stimulus during the Rinne Test; (2) the orientation of the tuning fork tines, parallel versus perpendicular to the EAC, affects the sound amplitude at the ear. To assess the variability in performing the Rinne Test, the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery members were surveyed. The amplitudes of the sound delivered to the tympanic membrane with the activated tuning fork tines held in parallel, and perpendicular to, the longitudinal axis of the EAC were measured using a Knowles Electronics Mannequin for Acoustic Research (KEMAR) with the microphone of a sound level meter inserted in the pinna insert. 47.4 and 44.8 % of 116 survey responders reported placing the fork parallel and perpendicular to the EAC respectively. The sound intensity (sound-pressure level) recorded at the tympanic membrane with the 512 Hz tuning fork tines in parallel with as opposed to perpendicular to the EAC was louder by 2.5 dB (95 % CI: 1.35, 3.65 dB; p < 0.0001) for the fundamental frequency (512 Hz), and by 4.94 dB (95 % CI: 3.10, 6.78 dB; p < 0.0001) and 3.70 dB (95 % CI: 1.62, 5.78 dB; p = .001) for the two harmonic (non-fundamental) frequencies (1 and 3.15 kHz), respectively. The 256 Hz tuning fork in parallel with the EAC as opposed to perpendicular to was louder by 0.83 dB (95 % CI: −0.26, 1.93 dB; p = 0.14) for the fundamental frequency (256 Hz), and by 4.28 dB (95 % CI: 2.65, 5.90 dB; p < 0.001) and 1.93 dB (95 % CI: 0.26, 3.61 dB; p = .02) for the two harmonic frequencies (500 and 4 kHz) respectively. Clinicians vary in their orientation of the tuning fork tines in relation to the EAC when performing the Rinne Test. Placement of the tuning fork tines in parallel as opposed to perpendicular to the EAC results in a higher sound amplitude at the level of the tympanic membrane.
-
Rinne Test: does the tuning fork position affect the sound amplitude at the ear?
Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale, 2016Co-Authors: Oleksandr Butskiy, Murray Hodgson, Desmond A NunezAbstract:Guidelines and text-book descriptions of the Rinne Test advise orienting the tuning fork tines in parallel with the longitudinal axis of the external auditory canal (EAC), presumably to maximise the amplitude of the air conducted sound signal at the ear. Whether the orientation of the tuning fork tines affects the amplitude of the sound signal at the ear in clinical practice has not been previously reported. The present study had two goals: determine if (1) there is clinician variability in tuning fork placement when presenting the air-conduction stimulus during the Rinne Test; (2) the orientation of the tuning fork tines, parallel versus perpendicular to the EAC, affects the sound amplitude at the ear. To assess the variability in performing the Rinne Test, the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery members were surveyed. The amplitudes of the sound delivered to the tympanic membrane with the activated tuning fork tines held in parallel, and perpendicular to, the longitudinal axis of the EAC were measured using a Knowles Electronics Mannequin for Acoustic Research (KEMAR) with the microphone of a sound level meter inserted in the pinna insert. 47.4 and 44.8 % of 116 survey responders reported placing the fork parallel and perpendicular to the EAC respectively. The sound intensity (sound-pressure level) recorded at the tympanic membrane with the 512 Hz tuning fork tines in parallel with as opposed to perpendicular to the EAC was louder by 2.5 dB (95 % CI: 1.35, 3.65 dB; p
-
Rinne Test: does the tuning fork position affect the sound amplitude at the ear?
Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, 2016Co-Authors: Oleksandr Butskiy, Murray Hodgson, Desmond A NunezAbstract:Background Guidelines and text-book descriptions of the Rinne Test advise orienting the tuning fork tines in parallel with the longitudinal axis of the external auditory canal (EAC), presumably to maximise the amplitude of the air conducted sound signal at the ear. Whether the orientation of the tuning fork tines affects the amplitude of the sound signal at the ear in clinical practice has not been previously reported. The present study had two goals: determine if (1) there is clinician variability in tuning fork placement when presenting the air-conduction stimulus during the Rinne Test; (2) the orientation of the tuning fork tines, parallel versus perpendicular to the EAC, affects the sound amplitude at the ear. Methods To assess the variability in performing the Rinne Test, the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery members were surveyed. The amplitudes of the sound delivered to the tympanic membrane with the activated tuning fork tines held in parallel, and perpendicular to, the longitudinal axis of the EAC were measured using a Knowles Electronics Mannequin for Acoustic Research (KEMAR) with the microphone of a sound level meter inserted in the pinna insert. Results 47.4 and 44.8 % of 116 survey responders reported placing the fork parallel and perpendicular to the EAC respectively. The sound intensity (sound-pressure level) recorded at the tympanic membrane with the 512 Hz tuning fork tines in parallel with as opposed to perpendicular to the EAC was louder by 2.5 dB (95 % CI: 1.35, 3.65 dB; p
Oleksandr Butskiy - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Rinne Test does the tuning fork position affect the sound amplitude at the ear
Journal of Otolaryngology-head & Neck Surgery, 2016Co-Authors: Oleksandr Butskiy, Murray Hodgson, Desmond A NunezAbstract:Guidelines and text-book descriptions of the Rinne Test advise orienting the tuning fork tines in parallel with the longitudinal axis of the external auditory canal (EAC), presumably to maximise the amplitude of the air conducted sound signal at the ear. Whether the orientation of the tuning fork tines affects the amplitude of the sound signal at the ear in clinical practice has not been previously reported. The present study had two goals: determine if (1) there is clinician variability in tuning fork placement when presenting the air-conduction stimulus during the Rinne Test; (2) the orientation of the tuning fork tines, parallel versus perpendicular to the EAC, affects the sound amplitude at the ear. To assess the variability in performing the Rinne Test, the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery members were surveyed. The amplitudes of the sound delivered to the tympanic membrane with the activated tuning fork tines held in parallel, and perpendicular to, the longitudinal axis of the EAC were measured using a Knowles Electronics Mannequin for Acoustic Research (KEMAR) with the microphone of a sound level meter inserted in the pinna insert. 47.4 and 44.8 % of 116 survey responders reported placing the fork parallel and perpendicular to the EAC respectively. The sound intensity (sound-pressure level) recorded at the tympanic membrane with the 512 Hz tuning fork tines in parallel with as opposed to perpendicular to the EAC was louder by 2.5 dB (95 % CI: 1.35, 3.65 dB; p < 0.0001) for the fundamental frequency (512 Hz), and by 4.94 dB (95 % CI: 3.10, 6.78 dB; p < 0.0001) and 3.70 dB (95 % CI: 1.62, 5.78 dB; p = .001) for the two harmonic (non-fundamental) frequencies (1 and 3.15 kHz), respectively. The 256 Hz tuning fork in parallel with the EAC as opposed to perpendicular to was louder by 0.83 dB (95 % CI: −0.26, 1.93 dB; p = 0.14) for the fundamental frequency (256 Hz), and by 4.28 dB (95 % CI: 2.65, 5.90 dB; p < 0.001) and 1.93 dB (95 % CI: 0.26, 3.61 dB; p = .02) for the two harmonic frequencies (500 and 4 kHz) respectively. Clinicians vary in their orientation of the tuning fork tines in relation to the EAC when performing the Rinne Test. Placement of the tuning fork tines in parallel as opposed to perpendicular to the EAC results in a higher sound amplitude at the level of the tympanic membrane.
-
Rinne Test: does the tuning fork position affect the sound amplitude at the ear?
Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale, 2016Co-Authors: Oleksandr Butskiy, Murray Hodgson, Desmond A NunezAbstract:Guidelines and text-book descriptions of the Rinne Test advise orienting the tuning fork tines in parallel with the longitudinal axis of the external auditory canal (EAC), presumably to maximise the amplitude of the air conducted sound signal at the ear. Whether the orientation of the tuning fork tines affects the amplitude of the sound signal at the ear in clinical practice has not been previously reported. The present study had two goals: determine if (1) there is clinician variability in tuning fork placement when presenting the air-conduction stimulus during the Rinne Test; (2) the orientation of the tuning fork tines, parallel versus perpendicular to the EAC, affects the sound amplitude at the ear. To assess the variability in performing the Rinne Test, the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery members were surveyed. The amplitudes of the sound delivered to the tympanic membrane with the activated tuning fork tines held in parallel, and perpendicular to, the longitudinal axis of the EAC were measured using a Knowles Electronics Mannequin for Acoustic Research (KEMAR) with the microphone of a sound level meter inserted in the pinna insert. 47.4 and 44.8 % of 116 survey responders reported placing the fork parallel and perpendicular to the EAC respectively. The sound intensity (sound-pressure level) recorded at the tympanic membrane with the 512 Hz tuning fork tines in parallel with as opposed to perpendicular to the EAC was louder by 2.5 dB (95 % CI: 1.35, 3.65 dB; p
-
Rinne Test: does the tuning fork position affect the sound amplitude at the ear?
Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, 2016Co-Authors: Oleksandr Butskiy, Murray Hodgson, Desmond A NunezAbstract:Background Guidelines and text-book descriptions of the Rinne Test advise orienting the tuning fork tines in parallel with the longitudinal axis of the external auditory canal (EAC), presumably to maximise the amplitude of the air conducted sound signal at the ear. Whether the orientation of the tuning fork tines affects the amplitude of the sound signal at the ear in clinical practice has not been previously reported. The present study had two goals: determine if (1) there is clinician variability in tuning fork placement when presenting the air-conduction stimulus during the Rinne Test; (2) the orientation of the tuning fork tines, parallel versus perpendicular to the EAC, affects the sound amplitude at the ear. Methods To assess the variability in performing the Rinne Test, the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery members were surveyed. The amplitudes of the sound delivered to the tympanic membrane with the activated tuning fork tines held in parallel, and perpendicular to, the longitudinal axis of the EAC were measured using a Knowles Electronics Mannequin for Acoustic Research (KEMAR) with the microphone of a sound level meter inserted in the pinna insert. Results 47.4 and 44.8 % of 116 survey responders reported placing the fork parallel and perpendicular to the EAC respectively. The sound intensity (sound-pressure level) recorded at the tympanic membrane with the 512 Hz tuning fork tines in parallel with as opposed to perpendicular to the EAC was louder by 2.5 dB (95 % CI: 1.35, 3.65 dB; p
Rohith Chendigi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
utility of Rinne s tuning fork Test for quantitative assessment of conductive hearing loss
International Journal of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, 2020Co-Authors: Shivakumar Senniappan, Rohith ChendigiAbstract:Background: The Rinne tuning fork Test is used routinely in clinical ENT examination. It is used to assess the person’s hearing acuity. Ideally, 3 tuning forks are used 256, 512 and 1024 Hz. Rinne tuning fork Tests can be used to diagnose conductive hearing loss. Aim of our study an attempt is made to find the utility of three different tuning forks (256,512,1024 Hz) for quantification of conductive hearing loss and their accuracy. M ethods: A retrospective study with a sample size of 300 was undertaken over 12 months from April 2018 to March 2019 at the out-patient department of ENT of VMKV medical college and hospital, Salem. Patients of both sexes and aged above 10 yrs presenting with conductive hearing loss due to varied etiology were subjected to complete ENT examination including Rinne Test with three different tuning forks (256, 512, 1024 Hz). R esults: The results of all the tuning forks (256, 512, 1024 Hz) shows that 29 patients were Rinne’s positive to all tuning forks had the air-bone gap range of 15 dB to 19 dB with a mean air-bone gap of 17.63 dB. 83 patients were negative to 256 Hz tuning fork but positive to 512 and 1024 Hz tuning forks had the air-bone gap range of 20 to 29 dB with a mean air-bone gap of 25.46 dB. C onclusions: We conclude that Rinne’s tuning fork Test can be used to quantify the degree of conductive hearing loss into mild (20-30 dB), moderate (30-45 dB), and severe (45-60 dB).
-
Utility of Rinne’s tuning fork Test for quantitative assessment of conductive hearing loss
International Journal of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, 2020Co-Authors: Shivakumar Senniappan, Rohith ChendigiAbstract:Background: The Rinne tuning fork Test is used routinely in clinical ENT examination. It is used to assess the person’s hearing acuity. Ideally, 3 tuning forks are used 256, 512 and 1024 Hz. Rinne tuning fork Tests can be used to diagnose conductive hearing loss. Aim of our study an attempt is made to find the utility of three different tuning forks (256,512,1024 Hz) for quantification of conductive hearing loss and their accuracy. M ethods: A retrospective study with a sample size of 300 was undertaken over 12 months from April 2018 to March 2019 at the out-patient department of ENT of VMKV medical college and hospital, Salem. Patients of both sexes and aged above 10 yrs presenting with conductive hearing loss due to varied etiology were subjected to complete ENT examination including Rinne Test with three different tuning forks (256, 512, 1024 Hz). R esults: The results of all the tuning forks (256, 512, 1024 Hz) shows that 29 patients were Rinne’s positive to all tuning forks had the air-bone gap range of 15 dB to 19 dB with a mean air-bone gap of 17.63 dB. 83 patients were negative to 256 Hz tuning fork but positive to 512 and 1024 Hz tuning forks had the air-bone gap range of 20 to 29 dB with a mean air-bone gap of 25.46 dB. C onclusions: We conclude that Rinne’s tuning fork Test can be used to quantify the degree of conductive hearing loss into mild (20-30 dB), moderate (30-45 dB), and severe (45-60 dB).
Murray Hodgson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Rinne Test does the tuning fork position affect the sound amplitude at the ear
Journal of Otolaryngology-head & Neck Surgery, 2016Co-Authors: Oleksandr Butskiy, Murray Hodgson, Desmond A NunezAbstract:Guidelines and text-book descriptions of the Rinne Test advise orienting the tuning fork tines in parallel with the longitudinal axis of the external auditory canal (EAC), presumably to maximise the amplitude of the air conducted sound signal at the ear. Whether the orientation of the tuning fork tines affects the amplitude of the sound signal at the ear in clinical practice has not been previously reported. The present study had two goals: determine if (1) there is clinician variability in tuning fork placement when presenting the air-conduction stimulus during the Rinne Test; (2) the orientation of the tuning fork tines, parallel versus perpendicular to the EAC, affects the sound amplitude at the ear. To assess the variability in performing the Rinne Test, the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery members were surveyed. The amplitudes of the sound delivered to the tympanic membrane with the activated tuning fork tines held in parallel, and perpendicular to, the longitudinal axis of the EAC were measured using a Knowles Electronics Mannequin for Acoustic Research (KEMAR) with the microphone of a sound level meter inserted in the pinna insert. 47.4 and 44.8 % of 116 survey responders reported placing the fork parallel and perpendicular to the EAC respectively. The sound intensity (sound-pressure level) recorded at the tympanic membrane with the 512 Hz tuning fork tines in parallel with as opposed to perpendicular to the EAC was louder by 2.5 dB (95 % CI: 1.35, 3.65 dB; p < 0.0001) for the fundamental frequency (512 Hz), and by 4.94 dB (95 % CI: 3.10, 6.78 dB; p < 0.0001) and 3.70 dB (95 % CI: 1.62, 5.78 dB; p = .001) for the two harmonic (non-fundamental) frequencies (1 and 3.15 kHz), respectively. The 256 Hz tuning fork in parallel with the EAC as opposed to perpendicular to was louder by 0.83 dB (95 % CI: −0.26, 1.93 dB; p = 0.14) for the fundamental frequency (256 Hz), and by 4.28 dB (95 % CI: 2.65, 5.90 dB; p < 0.001) and 1.93 dB (95 % CI: 0.26, 3.61 dB; p = .02) for the two harmonic frequencies (500 and 4 kHz) respectively. Clinicians vary in their orientation of the tuning fork tines in relation to the EAC when performing the Rinne Test. Placement of the tuning fork tines in parallel as opposed to perpendicular to the EAC results in a higher sound amplitude at the level of the tympanic membrane.
-
Rinne Test: does the tuning fork position affect the sound amplitude at the ear?
Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale, 2016Co-Authors: Oleksandr Butskiy, Murray Hodgson, Desmond A NunezAbstract:Guidelines and text-book descriptions of the Rinne Test advise orienting the tuning fork tines in parallel with the longitudinal axis of the external auditory canal (EAC), presumably to maximise the amplitude of the air conducted sound signal at the ear. Whether the orientation of the tuning fork tines affects the amplitude of the sound signal at the ear in clinical practice has not been previously reported. The present study had two goals: determine if (1) there is clinician variability in tuning fork placement when presenting the air-conduction stimulus during the Rinne Test; (2) the orientation of the tuning fork tines, parallel versus perpendicular to the EAC, affects the sound amplitude at the ear. To assess the variability in performing the Rinne Test, the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery members were surveyed. The amplitudes of the sound delivered to the tympanic membrane with the activated tuning fork tines held in parallel, and perpendicular to, the longitudinal axis of the EAC were measured using a Knowles Electronics Mannequin for Acoustic Research (KEMAR) with the microphone of a sound level meter inserted in the pinna insert. 47.4 and 44.8 % of 116 survey responders reported placing the fork parallel and perpendicular to the EAC respectively. The sound intensity (sound-pressure level) recorded at the tympanic membrane with the 512 Hz tuning fork tines in parallel with as opposed to perpendicular to the EAC was louder by 2.5 dB (95 % CI: 1.35, 3.65 dB; p
-
Rinne Test: does the tuning fork position affect the sound amplitude at the ear?
Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, 2016Co-Authors: Oleksandr Butskiy, Murray Hodgson, Desmond A NunezAbstract:Background Guidelines and text-book descriptions of the Rinne Test advise orienting the tuning fork tines in parallel with the longitudinal axis of the external auditory canal (EAC), presumably to maximise the amplitude of the air conducted sound signal at the ear. Whether the orientation of the tuning fork tines affects the amplitude of the sound signal at the ear in clinical practice has not been previously reported. The present study had two goals: determine if (1) there is clinician variability in tuning fork placement when presenting the air-conduction stimulus during the Rinne Test; (2) the orientation of the tuning fork tines, parallel versus perpendicular to the EAC, affects the sound amplitude at the ear. Methods To assess the variability in performing the Rinne Test, the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery members were surveyed. The amplitudes of the sound delivered to the tympanic membrane with the activated tuning fork tines held in parallel, and perpendicular to, the longitudinal axis of the EAC were measured using a Knowles Electronics Mannequin for Acoustic Research (KEMAR) with the microphone of a sound level meter inserted in the pinna insert. Results 47.4 and 44.8 % of 116 survey responders reported placing the fork parallel and perpendicular to the EAC respectively. The sound intensity (sound-pressure level) recorded at the tympanic membrane with the 512 Hz tuning fork tines in parallel with as opposed to perpendicular to the EAC was louder by 2.5 dB (95 % CI: 1.35, 3.65 dB; p
Sarun Prakairungthong - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
re evaluation of Rinne Test with aluminum alloy tuning fork 256 hz and 512 hz
Southern Medical Journal, 2019Co-Authors: Patcharaporn Phonpornpaiboon, Kanokrat Suvarnsit, Sarun PrakairungthongAbstract:Objective : To study the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the 256 Hz and 512 Hz aluminum tuning fork in the detection of conductive hearing loss by quick Rinne Test. Methods : The patients with hearing problems recruited from out-patient unit were Tested with the 256 Hz and 512 Hz aluminum quick Rinne Test. The audiometry was performed on the same day and the results were compared. Results : During the study period, 246 ears with conductive hearing loss and 246 ears with non-conductive hearing loss were recruited. The 256 Hz Rinne Test had higher sensitivity than the 512 Hz Rinne Test (93.83% and 71.95% respectively). The specificity and accuracy of the 512 Hz Rinne Test was markedly greater than the 256 Hz Rinne Test (91.18 % vs. 26.7% specificity and 83.57% vs. 61.85% accuracy). The 512 Hz Rinne Test had sensitivity over 80% when the air-bone gap was equal to or greater than 20 dB. The sensitivity was even higher (more than 90%) if the air-bone gap was equal to or greater than 30 dB. Conclusion : This study demonstrated that the 512 Hz Rinne Test had better accuracy than the 256 Hz Rinne Test for the diagnosis of conductive hearing loss. The 512 Hz Rinne Test can detect the air-bone gap of 30 dB or greater which indicates the surgical role with the sensitivity more than 90%. We recommend that 512 Hz Rinne Test should be used as a screening tool for the detection of conductive hearing loss.
-
Re – evaluation of Rinne Test with Aluminum Alloy Tuning Fork 256 Hz and 512 Hz
Mahidol University, 2019Co-Authors: Patcharaporn Phonpornpaiboon, Kanokrat Suvarnsit, Sarun PrakairungthongAbstract:Objective: To study the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the 256 Hz and 512 Hz aluminum tuning fork in the detection of conductive hearing loss by quick Rinne Test. Methods: The patients with hearing problems recruited from out-patient unit were Tested with the 256 Hz and 512 Hz aluminum quick Rinne Test. The audiometry was performed on the same day and the results were compared. Results: During the study period, 246 ears with conductive hearing loss and 246 ears with non-conductive hearing loss were recruited. The 256 Hz Rinne Test had higher sensitivity than the 512 Hz Rinne Test (93.83% and 71.95% respectively). The specificity and accuracy of the 512 Hz Rinne Test was markedly greater than the 256 Hz Rinne Test (91.18 % vs. 26.7% specificity and 83.57% vs. 61.85% accuracy). The 512 Hz Rinne Test had sensitivity over 80% when the air-bone gap was equal to or greater than 20 dB. The sensitivity was even higher (more than 90%) if the air-bone gap was equal to or greater than 30 dB. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the 512 Hz Rinne Test had better accuracy than the 256 Hz Rinne Test for the diagnosis of conductive hearing loss. The 512 Hz Rinne Test can detect the air-bone gap of 30 dB or greater which indicates the surgical role with the sensitivity more than 90%. We recommend that 512 Hz Rinne Test should be used as a screening tool for the detection of conductive hearing loss
