【摘要】：[目的]對比分析應(yīng)用低能量沖擊波治療突發(fā)性耳聾與傳統(tǒng)的治療方法治療突發(fā)性耳聾,探索新的、有效的突發(fā)性耳聾臨床治療方式。[方法]選擇2015年6月～2016年8月在昆明醫(yī)科大學(xué)第二附屬醫(yī)院耳鼻喉科確診為突發(fā)性聾并接受住院治療的99例患者,隨機分為A、B、C三組,所有病例均行聽力檢測(純音聽力檢測、聲阻抗、ABR)以及相關(guān)的影像學(xué)檢查。A組:常規(guī)藥物治療+低能量沖擊波治療:除了常規(guī)藥物治療,采用XY-K-SONOTHERA-500體外沖擊波治療儀,以1.8kHz低能量沖擊波配合LM號治療頭(內(nèi)徑20mm),沖擊點為耳周穴位點,每次治療沖擊波擊數(shù)標準指引為每個患耳施以1500至2,000擊次,至少三個療程。B組:常規(guī)藥物治療+高壓氧治療:除了常規(guī)藥物治療,輔助高壓氧治療,連續(xù)10 d。C組:常規(guī)藥物治療:單純予以激素靜脈滴注、長春西汀靜脈滴注、鼠神經(jīng)生長因子肌注、甲鈷胺膠囊口服治療。[結(jié)果]低能量沖擊波治療組與常規(guī)藥物治療組比較有統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(P=0.007,P0.01),高壓氧治療組與常規(guī)藥物組比較有統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(P=0.016,P0.05),低能量沖擊波治療組與高壓氧治療組比較無明顯統(tǒng)計學(xué)差異(P=1.000,P0.05)。[結(jié)論]低能量沖擊波治療組與高壓氧治療組比較無統(tǒng)計學(xué)差異,但低能量沖擊波治療突發(fā)性聾組明顯優(yōu)于常規(guī)藥物治療組,可嘗試作為一種新的輔助治療方式治療突發(fā)性耳聾患者。
[Abstract]:[objective] to explore a new and effective clinical treatment for sudden deafness with low energy shock wave. [methods] from June 2015 to August 2016, 99 patients who were diagnosed as sudden deafness in the Department of Otorhinolaryngology, second affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University and admitted to hospital were randomly divided into three groups. All patients underwent audiometry (pure tone audiometry, acoustic impedance, ABR), and related imaging examinations). Group A: conventional drug therapy: low energy shock wave therapy: in addition to routine drug therapy, Using XY-K-SONOTHERA-500 extracorporeal shock wave therapy instrument, 1.8kHz low energy shock wave combined with LM was used to treat head (inner diameter 20mm). The shock point was the point around the ear. The standard guideline of shock wave number per time was 1500 to 2000 beats per affected ear. At least three courses of treatment. Group B: routine drug therapy hyperbaric oxygen therapy: in addition to routine drug therapy, supplementary hyperbaric oxygen therapy, continuous 10 d.C group: routine drug therapy: hormone intravenous drip, vinpocetine intravenous drip, Nerve growth factor (NGF) was injected intramuscularly and methylcobalamin capsule was given orally. [results] there was significant difference between the low energy shock wave treatment group and the routine drug treatment group (P0. 007, P0.01), and the hyperbaric oxygen treatment group was significantly higher than the conventional drug group (P0. 016, P 0.05). There was no significant difference between the low energy shock wave group and the hyperbaric oxygen group (P < 0.05). [conclusion] there is no significant difference between the low energy shock wave group and the hyperbaric oxygen group, but the low energy shock wave group is superior to the routine medicine group in the treatment of sudden deafness. We can try to treat sudden deafness as a new adjuvant therapy.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：昆明醫(yī)科大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：R764.437

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 黎柱楊;王春;;鼠神經(jīng)生長因子治療突發(fā)性耳聾的臨床觀察[J];中國耳鼻咽喉顱底外科雜志;2015年04期

2 邵美君;焦粵龍;;巴曲酶聯(lián)合甲強龍和長春西汀治療全頻型突發(fā)性聾的臨床療效觀察[J];北方藥學(xué);2015年07期

3 錢怡;鐘時勛;胡國華;洪蘇玲;康厚墉;王玲;沈f，

本文編號：2380827