本文選題：聾 + 突發(fā)性�。� 參考：《中國耳鼻咽喉顱底外科雜志》2016年01期

【摘要】：目的探討全聾型突發(fā)性耳聾的臨床預(yù)后情況。方法采用回顧性研究納入年齡21~70歲,病程在1周內(nèi)的全聾型突發(fā)性耳聾患者(純音測聽全部頻率聽閾升高,0.5、1、2、4kHz平均聽閾≥81 dBHL)。采用統(tǒng)一治療方案,前列地爾注射液+舒血寧+腺苷鉆胺+激素和高壓氧治療。將不同治療時(shí)間、不同頻率聽力改善情況進(jìn)行統(tǒng)計(jì)分析。結(jié)果全聾型突發(fā)性耳聾患者52例,其中男22例(42.31%),女30例(57.69%),連續(xù)用藥1周、2周和3周總有效率分別為38.46%、57.69%、65.38%,組間聽力改善總有效率差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(χ~2=8.048,P=0.018)。第2周和第3周總有效率比較,差異不具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(χ~2=0.650,P=0.420)。第2周和第3周治愈率比較,差異具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(χ~2=0.865,P=0.451)。第2周和第3周總顯效性比較,差異具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(χ~2=3.544,P=0.1622)。治療3周后備頻率聽力恢復(fù)情況比較,不同頻率間痊愈率差異具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(χ~2=4.590,P=0.032),其中低頻0.25 kHz痊愈率為46.16%,0.5 kHz痊愈率為34.61%,明顯高于其它頻率。不同頻率間總顯效率比較,差異具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(χ~2=33.243,P0.001)。不同頻率間總有效率比較,差異具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(χ~2=16.008,P0.001),其中0.25、0.5 kHz總有效率均為78.85%。經(jīng)過3周治療后,不伴有眩暈的極重度聾患者總有效率為77.78%,痊愈率為26.92%,伴有眩暈的極重聾患者總有效率為52%,痊愈率為12%,兩組總有效率比較,差異不具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(χ~2=3.811,P=0.051);但兩組痊愈率比較,差異具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(χ~2=0.005,P=0.0000)。結(jié)論全聾型突發(fā)性耳聾患者連續(xù)治療3周可明顯改善患者聽力,且低頻區(qū)聽力恢復(fù)要好于高頻區(qū)。不伴有眩暈全聾型突發(fā)性耳聾患者痊愈率要高于伴有眩暈的全聾型突發(fā)性耳聾患者。
[Abstract]:Objective to investigate the clinical prognosis of sudden deafness with total deafness. Methods A retrospective study was carried out in 21 to 70 years old patients with sudden deafness with a course of 1 week. A unified treatment scheme was used, and alprostadil injection was treated with Shuxuening adenosine diamine hormone and hyperbaric oxygen. The improvement of hearing at different time and frequency was analyzed statistically. Results there were 52 cases of sudden deafness with total deafness, of which 22 cases were male (42.31) and 30 female (57.69%). The total effective rates were 38.46% for 2 weeks and 65.38% for 3 weeks, respectively. There was significant difference in the total effective rate of hearing improvement between the two groups (蠂 ~ 28.048) (P = 0.018). There was no significant difference in the total effective rate between the 2nd week and the 3rd week (蠂 2 + 0.650 P 0. 420). The difference between the cure rate at the 2nd week and the 3rd week was statistically significant (蠂 ~ 2 / 0 ~ (865) P ~ (0.451)). There was significant difference in the total effect between the second week and the third week (蠂 ~ 2 / 3.544 ~ 0.1622). There was significant difference in recovery rate between different frequencies (蠂 ~ (2 / 2) 4.590), in which the recovery rate of low frequency 0.25 kHz was 46.16 ~ (0.5) kHz, which was significantly higher than that of other frequencies. There was significant difference in the total effective rate among different frequencies (蠂 ~ (2 +) ~ (33) 243) P 0.001 ~ (-1). There was significant difference in the total effective rate between different frequencies (蠂 ~ (2 +)) (蠂 ~ (2 +)) ~ (16.008) (P _ (0.001)), in which the total effective rate of 0.25 ~ (0.5) kHz was 78.85. After 3 weeks of treatment, the total effective rate of extremely severe deafness without vertigo was 77.78, and the cure rate was 26.92. The total effective rate of the patients with dizziness was 52 and the cure rate was 12. The total effective rate of the two groups was compared. The difference was not statistically significant (蠂 ~ 2 + 3.811), but the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (蠂 ~ (2 / 2) 0.005 / P ~ (0.000)). Conclusion the hearing of patients with sudden deafness can be improved after 3 weeks of continuous treatment, and the recovery of hearing in the low frequency region is better than that in the high frequency region. The recovery rate of sudden deafness without vertigo was higher than that without vertigo.
【作者單位】： 北京市海淀醫(yī)院北京大學(xué)第三醫(yī)院海淀院區(qū)耳鼻咽喉科;
【分類號(hào)】：R764.437
，

本文編號(hào)：1810932