262例耳鸣患者听力损失情况的临床调查

目的对耳鸣患者的听力损失情况进行临床调查,为进一步探讨耳鸣的发病原因提供临床资料。方法对262例以耳鸣为第一主诉的患者进行纯音听阈测定,并详细询问耳鸣与听力损失发生的时间和部位,据此将耳鸣与听力的关系分为四种情况：听力正常,听力损失与耳鸣无相关性,听力损失与耳鸣有相关性,听力损失与耳鸣可能相关。结果262例患者中,50%的患者耳鸣与听力损失有相关性,其中27.5%的患者明确有相关性,22.5%的患者可能有相关性;50%的患者耳鸣与听力损失无明显相关性,其中28.2%的患者听力正常,21.8%的患者听力损失与耳鸣无明确的相关性。年龄分布中,20～60岁占78.6%,20岁以下及60岁以后较少。结论耳鸣与听力损失并非总是相伴相随,对耳鸣的发病原因及机理须从多角度进一步研究。     

扩展高频测听对常规纯音测听正常的耳鸣患者早期听力损失的诊断价值

人耳能听到20～20 000 Hz不同频率的声音,但目前临床常用的听力评价方法为纯音测听,其范围只包括0.125～8 kHz.而扩展高频测听为非常规纯音测听,可以测得人耳8 kHz以上的扩展高频听阈.     

扩展高频测听在噪声性听力损失早期诊断中的应用

目的 探讨扩展高频测听（１０－２０ｋＨｚ）在噪声性听力损失早期诊断中的作用及不同年龄,工龄,暴露噪声的强度与１０－２０ｋＨｚ听阈损失的关系。方法 应用频率范围为０．５－２０ｋＨｚ的纯音听力计对１０００名噪声下作业工人的听力进行检测,以１２０名不同年龄的健康人作为对照组,结果在９５－１１５ｄＢ（Ａ）的噪声强度下,当０．５～６ｋＨｚ的阈值未出异常时,１０－１８ｋＨｚ的阈值明显高于对照９５－１１５ｄＢ（     

高频测听在语频听力正常的耳鸣患者中的应用及其意义

目的 观察语频听力正常的耳鸣患者的高频测听结果并探讨其临床意义。方法 应用8－20kHz的纯音听力计对语频听力正常（≤25dB HL）的耳鸣组患者35例（60耳）和相同年龄段的正常对照组人群30例（60耳）进行高频测听。结果 耳鸣组患者的高频听阈检测结果显示，随频率增高，听阈逐渐提高，听阈检出率逐渐下降。相同频率耳鸣组患者与对照组人群移的差异有显著性意义（P＜0.05），14－20kHz范围内两组听阈检出率差异也有显著性意义（P＜0.01）。结论 耳鸣组患者高频听阈明显高于正常对照组，在14kHz以上听阈检出低于正常对照组。高频测听能够在早期为耳鸣患者提供听力受损的直接参考依据，患者的高频听务损失，可能在最初的耳鸣发生中起一定的作用。     

新疆不同民族耳鸣患者高频听力特点分析

目的探讨新疆不同民族以耳鸣为主要症状就诊患者的高频听力特征。方法对329例主观性耳鸣为主要症状的门诊就诊患者行病史和高频测听分析。结果各民族中汉族患者最多,女性多于男性,年龄分布以30～49岁为高峰,病程至少为半年以上,以无听力减退的耳鸣为主诉症状,纯音测听检查约1／3患者出现轻度感音神经性的听力减退。约2／3以上出现高频听力减退,其中以4kHz频率听力减退为主,且以50～70dB最多见。结论以耳鸣为主诉症状的患者当中大部分可测出高频听力的减退,为早期发现听力减退、防治耳聋等具有一定参考意义。     

不同类型听力损失伴耳鸣患者间隔感知特征分析

目的间隔感知测试是一项反映受试者听觉灵敏度的临床测试。本研究主要是对不同类型及程度的听力损失伴耳鸣患者进行间隔感知测试,包括在噪声中的间隔测试及500Hz、1000Hz、2000Hz频率的间隔阈值测试,并探索听力损失及耳鸣对间隔感知测试结果的影响。方法本研究选取听力正常者20例(40耳),听神经病患者15例(30耳),其中有耳鸣患者18耳,无耳鸣患者12耳。感音神经性聋患者36例(45耳),其中有耳鸣患者28耳,无耳鸣患者17耳。对所有受试者进行时域和频域间隔感知测试,并对其中的耳鸣患者进行耳鸣评估测试。结果①AN组间隔感知阈值显著高于听力正常组和感音神经性聋组(P<0.01)。②感音神经性聋组中,听损程度≤60dB患者的间隔感知显著小于听损程度>60dB的患者(P<0.01)。③将500Hz、1000Hz、2000Hz频率下的间隔感知测试结果进行组间比较均有显著性差异(P<0.01)。④对听神经病患者和感音神经性聋患者分别进行有耳鸣组和无耳鸣组分析,时域和频域间隔感知测试结果显示,有耳鸣组和无耳鸣组均无显著性差异(P>0.05)。⑤不同类型的耳鸣声在感音神经性聋患者中的间隔感知无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论间隔感知测试结果与有无耳鸣无关,与耳鸣声类型无关,与听力损失程度及病变部位有关。     

300例大学生主观性耳鸣患者临床表现分析

目的:探讨大学生主观性耳鸣患者的临床表现及心理声学特点。方法:以问卷调查的方法,收集300例大学生主观性耳鸣患者的基本信息,并进行纯音测听及耳鸣匹配检查,分析耳鸣的基本特征及其与各相关因素之间的关系。结果:耳鸣伴听力下降163例(54.3%),耳鸣匹配频率与听力下降频率有密切关系(P<0.01),耳鸣响度与严重度无明显相关性(P>0.05)。耳鸣对86.0%的患者的心理及学习生活产生较明显影响。结论:耳鸣与听力损失最大的音频近似;耳鸣响度与严重程度无相关性。耳鸣对患者心理及学习生活产生了较大的影响,在临床工作中应特别注重心理和社会因素对其的影响。     

242例不同类型听力曲线耳鸣患者心理声学分析

目的探讨不同听力曲线类型耳鸣患者耳鸣心理声学特点。方法回顾性研究符合纳入排除标准的耳鸣患者的纯音测听结果及耳鸣心理声学检查结果,采用SPSS 20.0中文版软件对所收集的相关数据进行分析,P≤0.05时差异有统计学意义。结果共收集符合标准的耳鸣患者242例,听力曲线分别为听力正常型82例(占33.88%),低频下降型14例(占5.79%),高频下降型94例(占38.84%),平坦下降型52例(21.49%);耳鸣主调声频率以4000Hz和8000Hz居多,耳鸣主调声响度则大多小等于5d B SL,Feldmann曲线主要是汇聚型和重叠型,残余抑制试验结果以阴性为多;经卡方检验或Fisher精确检验,不同听力曲线类型耳鸣患者耳鸣主调声频率差异有统计学意义,但耳鸣主调声响度、Feldmann曲线和残余抑制试验结果的差异没有统计学意义。结论不同听力曲线类型耳鸣患者的耳鸣心理声学差异大都没有统计学意义,我们并不能根据听力曲线预估患者的耳鸣心理声学及预后。     

扩展高频气导听阈和耳鸣的关系

目的 :探讨纯音听阈正常的耳鸣患者扩展高频气导听阈的变化。方法 :对 4 8例纯音听阈正常的耳鸣患者作扩展高频气导听阈测试 ,并根据年龄≤ 2 5岁 (14例 ) ,2 6～ 35岁 (18例 ) ,36～ 4 5岁 (16例 )分成 3个年龄组。同时以 30例正常听力、无耳鸣的青年作为正常对照组 ,分析 4组扩展高频气导听阈与耳鸣的关系。结果 :3个年龄组患侧各频率扩展高频听阈均数与自身健侧比较 ,且与正常对照组相比差异均有统计学意义 (P <0 .0 1) ;各年龄组患侧扩展高频听阈与 3个年龄组健侧相同频率听阈比较 ,差异有统计学意义 (P <0 .0 1) ,除≤2 5岁组与 2 6～ 35岁组相比差异无统计学意义 (P >0 .0 5 )外 ,≤ 2 5岁组与正常组在 10 .0kHz,12 .0kHz和 14 .0kHz差异亦无无统计学意义 (P >0 .0 5 )。结论 :纯音听阈正常的耳鸣患者的扩展高频气导听阈并不一定正常 ,耳鸣可能是内耳早期病变的症状之一 ,但是 ,对于年龄在 30岁左右及更年长者 ,扩展高频听阈改变还可能与年龄有关。扩展高频听阈测试应作为一种常规听力检查     

早期噪声性听力损失伴耳鸣患者的掩蔽效果分析

目的:观察耳鸣掩蔽疗法在早期噪声性听力损失伴耳鸣患者中的掩蔽效果,为临床该类耳鸣患者的治疗提供依据。方法:对68例早期噪声性听力损失伴耳鸣患者进行常规听力学检查和耳鸣检测,所有患者掩蔽治疗6个月后对其疗效进行比较分析。疗效评估采用耳鸣残疾评估量表及主观视觉模拟量表,测试比较其治疗前后的最小掩蔽声大小。结果:耳鸣检测结果显示该类患者的耳鸣主频绝大部分(59例,86.8%)为4kHz,残余抑制试验完全阳性者居多(44例,64.7%),掩蔽治疗效果好,有效率达83.8%,其中3例耳鸣完全消失;治疗前后耳鸣残疾评估量表得分、主观视觉模拟量表得分和最小掩蔽声大小比较均差异有统计学意义(均P<0.01)。结论:早期噪声性听力损失伴耳鸣患者的掩蔽治疗效果显著,值得推广。     

Hearing impairment and tinnitus pitch in patients with unilateral tinnitus: comparison of sudden hearing loss and chronic tinnitus

OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to analyze the results of pitch-matching and loudness-balance testing in patients with unilateral tinnitus and to evaluate the relationship between audiological findings based on the tinnitus-affected and tinnitus-unaffected threshold differences and tinnitus pitch by using linear interpolation methods. In addition, the effects of the duration of the tinnitus on this relationship were investigated. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss with tinnitus was selected for the "acute tinnitus" group, and unilateral tinnitus with unknown disease and a duration of more than 3 months was selected for the "chronic tinnitus" group. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study of the clinical records of patients. METHODS: One hundred thirty-two patients with unilateral tinnitus (comprising 68 female [51.5%] and 64 male [48.5%] patients) were investigated as subjects. Their mean age was 50.4 years (SD = 15.8 y). All patients underwent otoneurological testing, including the pure-tone audiogram and pitch-matching and loudness-balance tests. RESULTS: The mean difference in the hearing threshold between the tinnitus-affected ear and the tinnitus-unaffected ear was largest near the tinnitus pitch in both the acute and the chronic tinnitus groups. However, the relationship between hearing impairments and tinnitus pitch was somewhat different in the two groups: It exhibited a single smooth peak in the acute tinnitus group but a bimodal peak in the chronic tinnitus group. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that tinnitus is related to hearing impairment in the same frequency region in patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss with tinnitus or in patients with chronic tinnitus, whereas some instances of chronic tinnitus are caused by reorganization in cortical cells.     

Comparison of pulsed and continuous tone thresholds in patients with tinnitus

A comparison of threshold variation among patients with sensorineural hearing loss and accompanying tinnitus in relation to plused and continuous tone threshold determination was reported. The results indicated that both types of signals obtained comparable threshold levels at all audiometric frequencies tested, and did not vary by more than 1.6 dB. The greatest variation in threshold occurred at those frequencies which corresponds to the reported tinnitus. The latter was observed for 5 patients and did not exceed 5 dB. All threshold variations were within the acceptable criterion of ±5 dB. The majority of patients reported high-pitched tinnitus, and most frequently matched their tinnitus to 3 000 Hz. Over two-thirds of both normal and tinnitus subjects preferred to listen to pulsed tones as opposed to continuous tones during threshold determination. The data obtained from this study did not confirm the assumption that significantly lower threshold are obtained with pulsed tones among patients with tinnitus, although the use of pulsed tones appears to facilitate patient responsiveness.     

伴感音神经性聋耳鸣的心理声学和听力学特征

目的:研究伴感音神经性聋耳鸣的心理声学特征测试及听力学的特征。方法:选取感音神经性聋耳鸣患者61例(79耳)作为实验组,选取25例(50耳)听力正常且无耳鸣的志愿者作对照组,分别检测2组对象的纯音测听、声导抗测试、耳鸣检测、畸变产物耳声发射(DPOAE),并进行统计学分析。结果:实验组平均后效抑制阳性率为51.3%,其中耳鸣掩蔽曲线为汇聚型者掩蔽效果较好;实验组与对照组DPOAE的通过率差异有统计学意义,实验组(15.2%)低于对照组(96.0%);在500～8 000Hz各个频率点实验组DPOAE幅值低于对照组有统计学意义。结论:耳鸣心理声学测试能够更全面了解耳鸣详细的心理声学特征资料,对耳鸣康复指导提供更加详尽量化指标依据,DPOAE测试可以辅助对耳鸣患者耳蜗病变的诊断。     

Characteristics of tinnitus with or without hearing loss: Clinical observations in Sicilian tinnitus patients

Objective

To analyze the clinical characteristics of tinnitus both in normal hearing subjects and in patients with hearing loss.

Methods

The study considered 312 tinnitus sufferers, 176 males and 136 females, ranging from 21 to 83 years of age, who were referred to the Audiology Section of the Department of Bio-technology of Palermo University. The following parameters were considered: age, sex, hearing threshold, tinnitus laterality, tinnitus duration, tinnitus measurements and subjective disturbance caused by tinnitus. The sample was divided into two groups: Group 1 (G1) subjects with normal hearing; Group 2 (G2) subjects with hearing loss.

Results

Among the patients considered, 115 have normal hearing while 197 have a hearing deficit. There is a slight predominance of males respect to females that is more evidenced in G2 (61.42% of males vs. 38.58% of females). The highest percentage of tinnitus results in the decades 41–50 for G1 and >70 for G2 with a statistically significant difference between the two groups (P < 0.0001).The hearing impairment results in most cases of sensorineural type (74.62%) and limited to the high frequencies (58.50%), moreover the 72.10% of the patients with SNHL had a high-pitched tinnitus while the 88.37% of the patients high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss had a high-pitched tinnitus (P < 0.0001). As for the subjective discomfort, the catastrophic category resulted most representative among subjects with normal hearing with a statistically significant difference between the two groups but no significant correlation was found between the level of tinnitus intensity and the tinnitus annoyance confirming the possibility that tinnitus discomfort is elicited by a certain degree of psychological distress as anxiety, depression, irritability and phobias that do not allow the phenomenon of the ‘habituation’.

Conclusion

This work, according to literature data, suggests that the hearing status and the elderly represent the principal tinnitus related factors; moreover tinnitus characteristics differ in the two groups for tinnitus pitch. There is, in fact, a statistically significant association between high-pitched tinnitus and high-frequency SNHL suggesting that the auditory pathway reorganization induced by hearing loss could be one of the main source of the tinnitus sensation.     

Comparison of hearing recovery criteria in sudden sensorineural hearing loss

The countless methods available to analyze hearing recovery in idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSHL) cases hinder the comparison of the various treatments found in the literature.ObjectiveThis paper aims to compare the different criteria for hearing recovery in ISSHL found in the literature.Materials and MethodsThis is an observational clinical cohort study from a prospective protocol in patients with ISSHL, treated between 2000 and 2010. Five criteria were considered for significant hearing recovery and four for complete recovery by pure tone audiometry, using non-parametric tests and multiple comparisons at a significance level of 5%. After determining the stricter criteria for hearing recovery, vocal audiometry parameters were added.ResultsThere was a significant difference between the criteria (p < 0.001) as they were analyzed together. Mild auditory recovery occurred in only 35 (27.6%) patients. When speech audiometry was added, only 34 patients (26.8%) showed significant improvement.ConclusionsThere is a lack of consistency among the criteria used for hearing recovery. The criterion of change of functional category by one degree into at least mild hearing recovery was the stricter. Speech audiometry did not prove essential to define significant hearing recovery.