突发性耳聋风热侵袭型与气滞血瘀型纯音听阈测定、听性脑干诱发电位关系的研究

发布时间：2018-02-05 22:57

  本文关键词： 突发性耳聋 辨证分型 纯音听阂测定 听性脑干诱发电位　出处：《福建中医药大学》2010年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】： 目的：通过分析风热侵袭型及气滞血瘀型突发性耳聋患者的纯音听阈测定、听性脑干诱发电位各指标的差异,探讨不同证型在听力学方面的不同特征,找出证型与听力学变化的关系,从而提高辨证客观性与准确性,使祖国医学的优势得到进一步充分的发挥。方法：选2009年1月—2009年12月在福建省立医院耳鼻喉科门诊及住院的符合诊断标准的突发性耳聋患者,按其典型症候分为风热侵袭型与气滞血瘀型2组,分别进行纯音听阈测定及听性脑干诱发电位检查,分析两个证型听力学检测结果的特征及两组所存在的差异性。 结果：本课题风热侵袭组30例(30耳),伴耳鸣27例,眩晕9例,气滞血瘀组30例(33耳),伴耳鸣26例,眩晕9例。两组纯音听阈测定气导平均听阈及0.5-8KHz气导听阈均有显著性差异,风热侵袭组气导平均听阈及0.5-8KHz气导听阈均较气滞血瘀组低,听力损失程度较小。风热侵袭组以轻、中度耳聋为主,气滞血瘀组以中重度耳聋及重度耳聋为主。听力图形风热侵袭组以高频型听力下降及平坦型为主,气滞血瘀型则以平坦型为主。两组患者听性脑干诱发电位检查,Ⅴ波反应阈值有显著性差异。风热侵袭组Ⅴ波反应阈值明显低于气滞血瘀组,听力损失程度较低。两组短声80dB nHL刺激时听性脑干诱发电位Ⅰ波、Ⅲ波及Ⅴ波潜伏期及波间期无明显差异。 结论：初步认为风热侵袭型、气滞血瘀型突发性耳聋患者听力损失程度及听力图形有差异,提示听力学检查可能与中医辨证中病位有一些关系,为临床突发性耳聋中医客观辨证提供可能。
[Abstract]:Objective: to analyze the difference of auditory brainstem evoked potentials (BAEP) in patients with sudden deafness of wind-heat invasion type and Qi stagnation and blood stasis type, and to explore the different characteristics of different syndromes in audiology. To find out the relationship between syndrome types and audiology changes, so as to improve the objectivity and accuracy of syndrome differentiation. Make the advantage of motherland medicine get further full play. Method:. Patients with sudden deafness who met the diagnostic criteria were selected from January 2009 to December 2009 in the department of otolaryngology of Fujian Provincial Hospital. According to their typical symptoms, they were divided into two groups: wind and heat invasion type and qi stagnation and blood stasis type. The pure tone hearing threshold and auditory brainstem evoked potential (BAEP) were measured respectively. To analyze the characteristics of audiology test results of the two syndrome types and the differences between the two groups. Results: in the group of wind and heat invasion, there were 30 cases of tinnitus, 27 cases of tinnitus, 9 cases of vertigo, 30 cases of Qi stagnation and blood stasis group (30 cases) and 26 cases of tinnitus. There were significant differences in the mean and 0.5-8kHz air conduction thresholds between the two groups. The average hearing threshold and 0.5-8kHz hearing threshold of wind-heat invasion group were lower than those of Qi stagnation and blood stasis group, and the hearing loss was smaller. The main hearing loss was mild and moderate deafness in wind-heat invasion group. Qi stagnation and blood stasis group was mainly medium and severe deafness, and the hearing pattern wind heat attack group was high frequency hearing loss and flat type. There was significant difference in auditory brainstem evoked potential between the two groups. The threshold of V wave response in wind heat invasion group was significantly lower than that in qi stagnation and blood stasis group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the latency and interphase of auditory brainstem evoked potentials (wave 鈪，

本文编号：1492979