论文部分内容阅读
目的:探讨不同听力损失程度与不同听力曲线的突发性聋(突聋)患者对高压氧治疗疗效的影响,为制订个性化的治疗方案提供理论依据。方法:120例突聋患者被分成2组,每组60例。A组单纯药物治疗,B组在A组的基础上同时加用高压氧治疗;疗程2周。分析不同听力损失程度与不同听力曲线的突聋患者两种治疗方案疗效的差异。结果:A、B两组总有效率分别为60.00%(36/60)和83.33%(50/60),差异有统计学意义(χ2=8.044,P<0.01)。轻度和极重度聋时,两种治疗方案疗效差异无统计学意义;中度和重度聋时,两组疗效差异有统计学意义,其χ2分别为4.969和5.560,均P<0.05。在A组中,轻度与极重度疗效差异有统计学意义(χ2=6.739,P<0.05),其他不同程度耳聋之间的疗效均未显示出统计差异(χ2<3.910,P>0.05)。B组中,轻度与极重度、中度与极重度、重度与极重度疗效差异均有统计学意义,其χ2分别为11.500、15.058、10.221,均P<0.01,其他不同程度耳聋之间的疗效未显示出统计差异(χ2<1.313,P>0.05)。在上升型和全聋型听力曲线中,A、B两种治疗方案疗效差异均无统计学意义。而下降型和平坦型听力曲线中,A、B两种治疗方案疗效差异有统计学意义,其χ2分别为5.144和5.969,均P<0.05。在A组中,上升-下降、上升-平坦、上升-全聋型听力曲线间疗效差异均有统计学意义,其χ2分别为6.188、7.247、8.082,均P<0.05。而其他各型听力曲线间差异无统计学意义(χ2<0.566,P>0.05)。在B组中,各型听力曲线间疗效差异均无统计学意义(χ2<4.200,P>0.05)。结论:高压氧治疗疗效在不同的听力损失程度与不同听力曲线的突聋患者中有一定的差异,对中、重度听力损失及下降型与平坦型听力曲线者,药物联合高压氧治疗显示出一定的优势。
Objective: To investigate the effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy on patients with sudden deafness (sudden deafness) with different degrees of hearing loss and different hearing curves, so as to provide a theoretical basis for formulating personalized treatment plans. Methods: One hundred and twenty patients with sudden deafness were divided into two groups of 60 cases each. A group of simple drug treatment, B group in group A based on the same time with hyperbaric oxygen therapy; treatment for 2 weeks. Analysis of different hearing loss and different hearing curves in patients with sudden deafness treatment of two different efficacy. Results: The total effective rates in groups A and B were 60.00% (36/60) and 83.33% (50/60), respectively. The difference was statistically significant (χ2 = 8.044, P <0.01). There was no significant difference in curative effect between mild and severe deafness. There was significant difference between the two groups in moderate and severe deafness (χ2 = 4.969 and 5.560, all P <0.05). In group A, the difference between mild and maximal efficacy was statistically significant (χ2 = 6.739, P <0.05). No significant difference was found between the other deafness patients (χ2 <3.910, P> 0.05). In group B, there was significant difference between mild and maximal, moderate and severe, severe and very severe curative effect, with χ2 = 11.500,15.058,10.221, all P <0.01, between other degrees of deafness There was no statistical difference in efficacy (χ2 <1.313, P> 0.05). In both ascending and total deaf hearing curves, there was no significant difference in efficacy between A and B treatment regimens. The descending and flat hearing curves, A, B two treatment regimens were statistically significant, the χ2 were 5.144 and 5.969, all P <0.05. In group A, there were significant differences in the therapeutic effects of ascending-descending, ascending-ascending, and ascending-deaf audiogram, with χ2 = 6.188, 7.247, and 8.082, all P <0.05. There was no significant difference between other types of hearing curves (χ2 <0.566, P> 0.05). In group B, there was no significant difference in curative effect between various types of hearing curves (χ2 <4.200, P> 0.05). CONCLUSION: The therapeutic effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy is different in patients with sudden hearing loss and hearing loss. There is certain difference between hyperbaric oxygen therapy and patients with sudden deafness with moderate and severe hearing loss, as well as descending and flat hearing curves The advantages.