RESUMO
Abstract Introduction The manipulation of antineoplastic drugs presents high risk for accidents and occupational diseases. Objective To evaluate the auditory and vestibular systems of workers who are exposed to chemotherapeutic treatment in the University Hospital of Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Brazil, and to identify the use of individual protection equipment, related to the obtained results. Methods This study is a cross-sectional study using a quantitative method. We evaluate 33 male and female workers, ranging from 21-60 years old, of the nursing and pharmacy sectors. The workers underwent conventional Audiologic Assessment; Transient Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions; and Computerized Vectoelectronystagmography. Results The majority of the sample was female (90.9%). Individual protection equipment was used by 90.9% of the workers. Complaints of dizziness were reported by 56.25% of nursing workers and 52.94% of pharmacy workers. Audiological and vestibular assessment results were within normal limits, 96.97% and 74.20%, respectively. However, audiometric configuration of notch type was identified in 75.75% of all workers. Audiometric notches (76%) and altered caloric test (100%) were often associated with decreased use of coal masks. Conclusion Among the workers evaluated, the vestibulocochlear system was within the normal limits. The presence of notch configuration indicates the need to use individual protection equipment.
RESUMO
RESUMO Objetivo: Avaliar a habilidade de ordenação temporal com diferentes testes, verificar a especificidade desses testes e comparar o resultado com o grau de facilidade/dificuldade relatado pelos sujeitos. Métodos: Os indivíduos realizaram avaliação audiológica básica e Teste Dicótico de Dígitos, para triagem do processamento auditivo, e foram submetidos ao Teste Padrão de Frequência (TPF) e ao Teste Padrão de Duração (TPD), nas versões de Taborga-Lizarro, Musiek e Auditec®, para avaliar a habilidade de Ordenação Temporal. Após, foi apresentada a Escala Visual Analógica (EVA), para que os sujeitos identificassem a dificuldade de cada teste. Resultados: Foram avaliados 33 sujeitos, 29 do gênero feminino e quatro do gênero masculino, com idade entre 17 e 27 anos. Houve maior número de indivíduos que atingiram valores normais no teste Auditec® e de Taborga-Lizarro, para o TPD e TPF. No teste de Musiek, houve um número de sujeitos com resultados normais muito próximos aos de sujeitos com alteração de processamento. Na distribuição do teste mais difícil, houve significância estatística para o teste de Musiek. Quanto à especificidade dos testes, o Auditec® mostrou-se melhor, porém, a análise foi realizada apenas em TPF. Conclusão: Embora os indivíduos não tenham apresentado alteração e queixa de processamento auditivo, houve diferença nos resultados dos testes de ordenação temporal. Quanto ao grau de dificuldade relatado para o teste de Musiek, verificou-se que houve influência deste fator nos resultados dos testes. Na análise de especificidade dos testes, pôde-se observar melhores resultados para o teste Auditec®.
ABSTRACT Purpose: Evaluate temporal ordering ability with different tests, verify the specificity of these tests and compare the result with the level of easiness/difficulty reported by the subjects. Methods: The subjects carried out basic audiological evaluation and Dichotic Digit Test, for auditory processing screening, and they also underwent Frequency Pattern Test (FPT) and Duration Pattern Test (TPD), in the versions of Taborga-Lizarro, Musiek and Auditec®, in order to evaluate the temporal ordering ability. Afterwards, the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was presented, so that the subjects could identify the difficulty of each test. Results: A total of 33 subjects were evaluated, being 29 women and four men, aged from 17 to 27 years. There were a higher number of individuals who have reached normal levels in Auditec® test and in Taborga-Lizarro test, for FPT and TPD. In the Musiek test, there were some subjects with normal results very close to the ones observed on subjects with processing disorders. In the distribution of the most difficult test, there was a statistical significance for the Musiek test. In terms of the specificity of the test, Auditec® proved to be better. However, the analysis was performed only on TPD. Conclusion: Although the subjects did not present change and auditory processing complaints, we found difference in the results of temporal ordering tests. In relation to the reported difficulty for Musiek test, we verified that there was influence of this factor on the test results. In the analysis for specificity tests, better results for the Auditec® test could be observed.