Objective: To investigate whether the aetiology for @entity393 in neonates with @entity16 could be explained by structural abnormalities such as @entity4237 , a cerebellopontine angle @entity5 or another identifiable lesion. Methods: In this prospective case series, 17 neonates were diagnosed with @entity16 on electrophysiological testing. Diagnostic audiology testing, including auditory brainstem response testing, was supplemented with computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging. Results: Ten of the neonates (59 per cent) showed evidence for @entity4237 . Of the remaining seven, four were shown to have another abnormality of the temporal bone on imaging. Only three neonates (18 per cent) were not diagnosed with @entity4237 or another lesion. Three computed tomography scans were reported as normal, but subsequent magnetic resonance imaging revealed @entity4237 . Conclusion: Auditory @entity16 as a unilateral condition mandates further investigation for a definitive diagnosis. This series demonstrates that most neonates with @entity16 had pathology as visualised on computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging scans. Magnetic resonance imaging is an appropriate first-line imaging modality.

XXXX : retrocochlear lesion in disguise?

@entity5 :: ('MESH:D009369', 'Disease') :: ['tumour'] @entity4237 :: ('MESH:D000160', 'Disease') :: ['cochlear nerve aplasia'] @entity393 :: ('MESH:D034381', 'Disease') :: ['hearing impairment'] @entity16 :: ('MESH:D009422', 'Disease') :: ['unilateral auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder', 'neuropathy spectrum disorder']
@entity16 :: (MESH:D009422,Disease) :: ['Unilateral auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder']
