This is termed a false-negative Rinne test result. joesnurse Terms in this set (8) how is the Weber test done By placing a 512 vibrating tuning fork on the patient forehead (midline), where you can hear a buzzing noise. This results from the transmission of vibrations by bone across the skull to the opposite side, where they are sensed by the healthy ear. If there is total deafness in one ear, the patient may hear the tuning fork even when it is placed on the mastoid process of the deaf ear. Normally, air conduction (AC) is better than bone conduction (BC) that is, AC > BC. Perceive the tone made by the tuning fork (positive Rinne i.e. When the tuning fork is moved beside the entrance to the ear canal, the subject will either: 1. Once you have done this, ask the subject whether they can still hear the sound. B, When the sound can no longer be heard, the tuning fork is placed in front of the external auditory meatus. the tuning fork 1cm away from the entrance to the ear canal. A, The tuning fork is first placed on the mastoid process. A tuning fork of too high a frequency yields a tone that fades too quickly. *Different examiners prefer tuning forks of different frequencies for determining auditory acuity. The middle ear amplifies the sound in both positions. A physician can utilize the simple physics of a tuning fork to determine whether hearing loss is conductive or sensorineural using the Weber and Rinne tests. Patients with sensorineural deafness have impaired air and bone conduction but maintain the normal response (AC > BC). In patients with a conductive hearing loss, however, bone conduction is better than air conduction: a Rinne negative test result (BC > AC). Normally, air conduction (AC) is better than bone conduction (BC), and patients are able to hear the tuning fork at the external auditory meatus after they can no longer hear it on the mastoid tip this is a Rinne positive test result (AC > BC). The Rinne test is demonstrated in Figure 11-12. The tines of the vibrating tuning fork should not touch any hair because the patient may have a hearing impairment but still feel the vibration. When the patient can no longer hear the sound, place the tines of the vibrating tuning fork in front of the external auditory meatus of the same ear, and ask the patient whether he or she can still hear the sound. Ask the patient whether he or she hears the sound and to indicate when he or she no longer hears it. Strike a 512-Hz tuning fork and place its handle on the mastoid tip near the external auditory meatus. Rinne conductive hearing loss otosclerosis tuning fork.In the Rinne test, air conduction is compared with bone conduction. These findings have clinical implications for using tuning forks to determine candidacy for stapes surgery. bone conduction by comparing the sound heard when holding the tuning fork next to the ear versus placing it on the mastoid process. This is substantiated by observations of clear differences in the relative acoustic versus mechanical outputs of steel and aluminum forks, reflecting underlying inevitable differences in acoustic versus mechanical impedances of these devices, and thus efficiency of coupling sound/vibratory energy to the auditory system. Weber test determines laterality of hearing loss by placing a tuning fork on the forehead or mastoid process and determining which ear the sound is louder in. In healthy individuals, Rinne's test is positive (indicating air conduction is better than bone conduction) and Weber's is heard in the midline. We have found that steel tuning forks can detect a lesser air-bone gap compared to aluminum tuning forks. Rinne's and Weber's are tuning fork tests (512 Hz tuning fork) used to screen for conductive and sensorineural hearing loss.

Bench top testing revealed that steel forks demonstrate, in effect, more comparable air and bone conduction efficiencies while aluminum forks have relatively lower bone conduction efficiency. Logistic regression revealed that the probability of a negative Rinne reached 50% at a 19 dB air-bone gap for stainless steel versus 27 dB with aluminum.

Patients with CHL were more likely to produce a negative Rinne test with a steel fork than with an aluminum fork. Bench top measurements using sound-level meter, microphone, and artificial mastoid. Rinne test results using aluminum and steel forks were compared and correlated with the audiometric air-bone gap. (2) Determine the relative acoustic and mechanical outputs of 512-Hz tuning forks made of aluminum and stainless steel.įifty subjects presenting May 2011 to May 2012 with negative or equivocal Rinne in at least 1 ear and same-day audiometry. (1) Determine whether tuning fork material (aluminum vs stainless steel) affects Rinne testing in the clinical assessment of conductive hearing loss (CHL).

Tuning fork test vs rinne