Comparison of CE-Chirp ABR and Click ABR methods in patients with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss

Objective: In this study, we aimed to compare ABR threshold values, V. wave latency times, amplitudes obtained using Click ABR and CE-Chirp ABR methods and procedural times of these tests in patients with bilateral hearing loss. Methods: A total of 19 adult male patients were included in the study. ABR latency times with 10 dB decreases starting from 100 dB, V. wave latencies, V. wave amplitudes obtained using Click ABR and CE-Chirp ABR methods and procedural times were compared for both ears. Results: Procedural time for CE-Chirp ABR test was found to be shorter than that of Click ABR test (p=0.001). For both ears, mean CE-Chirp ABR threshold values were more favorable than those of Click ABR test [(60.15±10.34 vs. 62.27±9.93) dB nHL, p<0.006]. For both ears, the threshold values of mean pure tone audiometry were estimated as following: 1 KHz (55.00±14.36 dB), 2 KHz (60.00±13.40 dB) and 4 KHz (63.48±10.57 dB). The corresponding values were calculated 62.27±9.93 dB nHL and 60.15±10.34 dB nHL using Click ABR and CE-Chirp ABR methods, respectively. Procedural time for CE-Chirp ABR test was shorter than that of Click ABR test [(24.89±4.74 vs. 28.63±4.98) min., p=0.001]. Conclusion: It has been determined that the use of CE-Chirp stimulus shortened ABR procedural time and provided responses closer to behavioral threshold values. In conclusion, we observed that CE-Chirp method was more advantageous than Click ABR method for the evaluation of the patients with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss.