使用人工耳蜗和助听器的语前聋儿童言语识别能力的研究

目的 通过对使用人工耳蜗和助听器的语前聋儿童的言语识别能力的比较研究,为人工耳蜗植入适应证提供参考.方法实验对象包括18例人工耳蜗植入和40例配戴助听器的先天性语前聋儿童,先在自由声场测试双耳裸耳听阈,根据装置使用时间和平均裸耳听阈值分组,测试并比较使用人工耳蜗和助听器的语前聋儿童封闭项的声母、韵母、单音节词识别率.结果人工耳蜗植入时间≥2年组儿童的韵母、声母和单音节词识别率明显高于＜2年组患者.助听器使用时间≥2年组的各测试项识别率与＜2年组差异无统计学意义.装置使用时间＜2年的语前聋儿童,人工耳蜗植入者的各测试项识别率均明显高于平均裸耳听阈＞100 dB HL的助听器使用者,与平均裸耳听阈≤100 dB HL的助听器使用者的各测试项识别率差异均无统计学意义.装置使用时间≥2年的语前聋儿童,人工耳蜗植入者的各测试项识别率均明显高于平均裸耳听阈＞90 dB HL的助听器使用者,但与平均裸耳听阈＞70 dB HL但≤90 dB HL的助听器使用者差异无统计学意义.结论极重度语前聋儿童人工耳蜗植入后能获得比助听器使用者更好的言语识别能力.     

索菲康骨导助听器助听效果的多中心研究

目的 评估软带或头带佩戴新型经皮传导索菲康骨导助听器对传导性聋或混合性聋、单侧聋患者的助听效果.方法 以来自国内4家三级甲等医院的109例传导性或混合性聋患者及11例单侧聋(single-sided deafness,SSD)患者为研究对象,均以纯音测听(≥6岁患者)或听性脑干反应(ABR)(<6岁患者)评估裸耳听阈后予以头带或软带佩戴索菲康Alpha 2 MPO骨导助听器;并在声场下进行未助听、佩戴当日及佩戴2周后的助听听阈(0.5~4 kHz)测试;≥6岁患者进行未助听、佩戴当日及佩戴2周助听下的言语识别阈(speech recognition threshold, SRT)测试,并记录患者佩戴后的不良反应.结果 传导性或混合性聋患者中≥6岁患者助听耳裸耳骨导及气导平均听阈均值分别为18.55±8.99、71.45±10.25 dB HL,<6岁组助听耳裸耳骨导及气导ABR阈值均值分别为18.33±8.36、70.80±8.24 dB HL;SSD患者助听耳裸耳听阈不能测出;佩戴2周后,三组助听后纯音听阈均值分别为32.21±10.00、37.33±14.15、34.38±10.76 dB HL,较未助听时明显改善,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);≥6岁传导性或混合性聋组和SSD组患者佩戴2周后助听下各方向SRT较未助听时均显著降低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);各组患者均无与佩戴助听器相关的不良皮肤反应等.结论 使用软带、头带佩戴索菲康骨导助听器,可有效改善传导性或混合性聋、SSD患者听阈和安静环境下言语识别阈.     

佩戴助听器与人工耳蜗听障儿童交流能力的比较

此项研究比较了佩戴助听器和植入人工耳蜗的听障儿童的交流能力。研究对使用不同放大措施的听障儿童进行言语识别和语言评估，并对使用人工耳蜗的听障儿童进行了康复效果的纵向比较。评估实验组为39例佩戴助听器的儿童，裸耳纯音听阈平均为78．2dB HL，对照组为117例人工耳蜗植入术后的儿童，术前纯音听阈平     

感音神经性聋患儿的听功能综合评估

目的探讨听力测试组合（ABR＋ASSR＋声场环境中的行为测听）在感音神经性聋患儿残余听力评估中的应用价值。方法48名（96耳）感音神经性聋患儿中能配合纯音测听的患儿19人（38耳）设为PTA组,进行纯音测听及ASSR检测;不能配合纯音测听的患儿29人（58耳）设为BA组,进行声场环境中的行为测听（behavior audiometry,BA）、ABR及ASSR检测。结果①PTA组0．5、1、2、4kHz各频率ASSR反应阈与纯音听阈显著相关（P〈0．01）,各频率相关系数分别为0．75、0．76、0．76、0．83,建立本实验室的ASSR—PTA直线回归方程;②BA组23耳ABR无反应但仍可引出ASSR,而ASSR无反应耳ABR均未能引出;BA组29例患儿中ASSR检测反应较好耳（29耳）在0．5～4kHz四个频率上,ASSR可测得83个反应阈值,行为测听可测得89个反应阈值,综合ASSR和行为测听可以得到96个反应阈值。结论与单项听力测试方法相比,听力测试组合（行为测听＋ABR＋ASSR）能为更小年龄、听力损失更重的患儿进行残余听力的评估,同时能对双侧耳间听力差异、各频率的听力损失程度进行评估,为听力损失病变的定位判断提供参考。     

成人感音神经性聋听觉稳态诱发反应阈值与纯音听阈值比较

目的：测定成人感音神经性聋患者听觉稳态诱发反应（ASSR）和纯音听阈值，为临床诊断提供客观依据。方法：选成人感音神经性聋患者33例（65耳），行ASSR阈值纯音听测试。结果：ASSR、纯音听阈值对比有统计学意义，听阈有显著相关性，0．5、1．0、2．0、4．0kHz频区间相关系数分别为：0．769、0．772、0．743、0．756。ASSR阈值较行为阈值高，ASSR阈值与纯音听阈间差值多在3．0～10．0dB HL之间。在0．5、1．0、2．0、4．0kHz频区间分剐为：4．77、8．83、6．49、3．67dB HL，随频率增高，两者的差异有缩小趋势。结论：成人感音神经性聋患者ASSR阈值与纯音听阈间对比有统计学意义，通过测试ASSR阈值可推断出被检查者纯音听阈的阈值。     

多频稳态诱发电位(ASSR)的临床应用研究(36例极重度感音神经性耳聋幼儿及32例成人感音神经性耳聋患者ASSR测试结果分析)

目的旨在探讨ASSR与ABR在极重度感音神经性耳聋幼儿及成人感音神经性耳聋患者测试中的临床应用价值.方法对36例(72耳)小于3岁极重度感音神经性耳聋幼儿分别行ASSR和ABR测试;对32例(64耳)成人感音神经性耳聋患者分别行ASSR和电测听测试.结果①极重度感音神经性耳聋幼儿ABR均未引出V波,而ASSR在0.5 kHz、1 kHz、2 kHz、4 kHz的引出率分别为66.67%、86.11%、88.89%、94.44%,ASSR在0.5 kHz、1 kHz、2 kHz、4 kHz的阈值均数、标准差分别为82.56±9.26 dB HL、90.31±6.94 dB HL、88.12±7.93 dB HL、88.62±8.12 dB HL.②对成人感音神经性耳聋患者0.5 kHz、1 kHz、2 kHz、4 kHz ASSR测试阈值与电测听语频听阈(dB HL)进行配对两两比较的t检验,各组P值均大于0.05,无显著性差异.结论ASSR有助于极重度感音神经性耳聋幼儿残余听力的客观评估,尤以高频听阈为佳;ASSR与电测听在感音神经性耳聋诊断上有良好的一致性.     

听神经病的临床与听功能特征

目的:探讨听神经病的临床与听功能特征。方法:总结分析54例听神经病患者的临床资料、听力学测试及电生理检查情况。结果:纯音听力图呈上升型70耳,覆盆型25耳,平坦型5耳,下降型4耳;低频、中频及高频平均阈值为(67.63±15.30,43.61±16.28,32.25±14.80)dB HL。声导抗鼓室图全部正常,77耳镫骨肌声反射消失,31耳声反射阈部分增高。听性脑干反应(ABR)全部未引出。畸变产物耳声发射(DPOAE)正常引出,26例行对侧声抑制未受影响。16例言语识别率差,与纯音听阈不成比例。23例颞骨CT或MRI未见异常。10例伴有周围神经病。结论:ABR自波Ⅰ起缺失而DPOAE正常引出,言语分辨力差与纯音听阈不成比例,镫骨肌声反射及OAE交叉抑制异常,纯音听力图多呈上升型以低频损失为主,是听神经病听功能的重要特征。提示病损主要位于耳蜗内听神经纤维。应与一般的感音神经性聋和中枢性聋相鉴别。     

耳硬化致极重度聋患者临床特点及人工耳蜗植入效果观察

目的 总结5例耳硬化致极重度聋患者听力学及颞骨CT特点并观察人工耳蜗植入术后效果.方法 对5例重度、极重度聋的耳硬化患者,行纯音测听、声导抗、耳声发射、听性脑干反应及颞骨CT检查.5例患者均按常规入路行人工耳蜗植入术(4例单侧,1例双侧).术后1个月开机调试,术后6个月行声场下的纯音听阈、言语识别率检测.结果①临床特点:5例患者均呈渐进性双耳听力下降,双耳纯音平均听阈>90 dB HL,呈混合性或感音神经性聋,双耳鼓膜正常,声导抗检查呈低峰型鼓室导抗图,声反射引不出;颞骨高分辨CT显示耳蜗周边呈海绵状改变的低密度透亮及双环状影,无正常耳蜗的骨性结构.②手术所见:5例(6耳)开放耳蜗鼓阶均较困难,耳蜗鼓阶内充满疏松的骨性组织,距圆窗口7～9 mm才显示出耳蜗鼓阶的解剖标志,术中电极阻抗检测正常,5例(6耳)均引出标准的神经反应遥测波形.③术后随访8个月～3.1年,平均听阈为20～37 dB HL,开放式汉语单声母、韵母言语识别率为95%～99%.结论 耳硬化致极重度聋患者人工耳蜗植入后能获得较满意的听觉及言语识别效果.     

母系遗传性聋家系的纯音测听及畸变产物耳声发射测试的相关分析

目的：探讨母系遗传非综合征性聋的听力学特征及畸变产物耳声发射测试对其听改变早期诊断的优越性。方法：对六个母系遗传家系成员共102人进行纯音测听、DPOAE评估其听力，比较纯音测听与DPOAE检测耳蜗早期病变的灵敏性。结果：纯音测听为感音神经性聋的38例中，PTA≥45d B HL的18例，DPOAE反应缺失；PTA＜45dB HL的20例，DPOAE高频或高、中频振幅下降或缺失；纯音测听正常者中4例DPOAE显示高频或高中频振幅下降。结论：母系遗传非综合征性聋的听力损害为双侧、对称性、进行性感音神经性聋，早期表现高频损害，DPOAE可在纯音听阈改变之前，发现早期耳蜗轻微的病理变化，对早期诊断及遗传咨询有较大指导意义。     

听神经病

目的介绍一种特殊的感音神经性听力疾患-听神经病,探讨其临床特征及听力学特点.方法报道5例听神经病患者,2例为成人;3例为儿童.记录患者的临床资料,并对患者进行纯音测听、脑干电反应测听、耳声发射、耳蜗电图及语言辨别率等听力学检查.结果5例均主诉听力下降,听力学检查纯音听阈为轻、中度感音神经性聋,与纯音测听不相符的语言辨别率明显下降,不能引出脑干诱发电位(ABR),耳蜗电图基本正常,畸变产物耳声发射(DPOAE)基本正常.提示外毛细胞功能正常,病变可能在听神经.结论听神经病是一种主诉听力下降,纯音听阈为轻、中度感音神经性聋,不能引出脑干诱发电位(ABR),畸变产物耳声发射正常的听力疾患,临床上应与其他感音神经性聋区别.     

Self-reported benefits of hearing aids by the hearing impaired

Benefits of hearing aids were studied in a group of 169 patients using an open-ended self-report approach. The overall pattern of benefits was qualitatively similar to the pattern of complaints reported by candidates for hearing aids (Golabek et al., 1988). The response pattern was related to the age and work of the hearing aid users, to the level of the hearing loss in the better ear and to the amount of use of the hearing aid.     

听力筛查不通过婴幼儿的听力评估

目的:对2次听力筛查不通过耳进行听力评估,分析其ABR与鼓室导抗图的特征,探讨听力筛查不通过耳的客观听觉状况及听力筛查和评估干扰因素。方法:选取2005年8月~2007年11月因进行耳声发射(OAE)新生儿听力筛查2次筛查未通过而转诊到儿童听力中心的患儿为研究对象,年龄在48 d~6个月,共94例(144耳)。详细询问并记录病史,按首次听力评估时的月龄分为~3个月及~6个月组,并行听性脑干反应(ABR)、畸变产物耳声发射(DPOAE)、鼓室声导抗和蹬鼓肌反射等客观听力测试。结果:①2次听力筛查未通过婴幼儿的鼓室导抗曲线仍以单峰A型为主(77耳,53.4%);双峰次之(23耳,16.0%);单峰Ad型(20耳,13.9%);单峰As型(16耳,11.1%);B型图亦占有一定的比例(6耳,4.2%)。②其ABR以正常及轻度异常为主(分别为44.4%及40.3%),中度、重度及极重度异常比例相对较少(分别为8.3%、2.1%及4.9%),且随着年龄增长,轻度异常比例增加,中度及以上异常比例下降。③ABR正常组单峰A型鼓室图有32耳(50%),考虑存在假阴性结果。正常及轻度听力异常者B型曲线比例分别为4.7%和3.4%,高于中度及以上异常者。结论:中耳因素及低龄婴幼儿听觉神经系统发育的不完善是导致听力筛查未能通过的比较重要的原因,同时,226 Hz的鼓室声导抗在评估婴幼儿中耳疾病时存在较大的假阴性,因此在对2次听力筛查未通过婴幼儿进行听力评估时应充分考虑到上述因素的影响。     

Results of the bone-anchored hearing aid in unilateral hearing loss

OBJECTIVES: The advantages of binaural hearing are well established and universally accepted. However, a tendency remains to withhold the benefits of binaural hearing to adults and children with one normal ear. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the benefit of the bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) in a group of patients with unilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss. STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective study of nine patients (five males and four female patients) with conductive or mixed hearing loss who met the criteria for BAHA except for having normal hearing in the other ear. They had congenital aural atresia or mastoidectomies secondary to chronic ear infections with or without cholesteatoma or had a temporal bone tumor excised METHODS: Patients had evaluations before and after implantation, including audiological testing and responses to a standardized hearing handicap questionnaire. Statistical analyses of the data were made using the Wilcoxon signed rank test and the paired Student t test for repeated measures. RESULTS: All patients had tonal and spondee threshold improvement with BAHA when compared with thresholds before treatment. Speech recognition performance in BAHA-aided conditions was comparable to the patient's best score in unaided condition. Patients reported a significant improvement in their hearing handicap scores with the BAHA. CONCLUSIONS: The use of BAHA has significantly improved the hearing handicap scores in patients with unilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss. The proven safety and efficacy of the device promote its use in unilateral cases that traditionally had been left unaided.     

Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss in the only hearing ear: patient characteristics and hearing outcome

OBJECTIVE: To determine the otological outcome in patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSHL) in their only hearing ear. DESIGN: Retrospective medical chart review study. SETTING: Tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: Forty-five consecutive patients older than 18 years with sudden sensorineural hearing loss during a 10 year period (1985-1995), 9 of whom had ISSHL in their only hearing ear. INTERVENTION: Daily audiometric tests, oral prednisolone (full available dose), and bed rest for at least a week. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The audiometric result 7 to 10 days following the start of treatment was used as the treatment outcome. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics were not significantly different between patients with ISSHL whose contralateral ear is deaf and those whose contralateral ear hears well. A tendency to seek help sooner (2.8 +/- 1.4 vs 7.1 +/- 5.2 days [mean +/- SD], respectively) was noted. The mean +/- SD improvement of hearing in the 3 more affected frequencies was 13 +/- 13.4 dB for the investigated group compared with 9 +/- 8.7dB for the rest of the patients (not statistically significant). Of the 9 patients who previously had sensorineural hearing loss in the opposite ear, 5 showed end results of speech reception thresholds of 35 dB or better, as did 13 of the 36 patients in the other group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ISSHL in their only hearing ear may be treated the same way as other patients because their outcome appears to be the same. About 50% of the patients will have a 10 dB or more hearing improvement, and about 60% of patients in the investigated group will regain useful hearing.     

Effect of hearing aids on hearing

We examined 114 patients aged 10 to 91 years with different kinds of hearing aids fitted in one ear only, the unaided ear acting as a control. They were re-examined several times during a period of follow-up from 1 to 9 years comparing the relative change in hearing due to hearing aid usage with various degrees of amplification of the aid. We compared the degree of hearing loss in the aided and unaided ear looking for evidence of a possible change in hearing related to the frequency of hearing aid usage in hours per day and in years, the maximum power output (MPO) and the gain of the aid. According to our findings there is no change in hearing between the aided and the unaided ear at the alpha = 0.05 probability level at least for 8 years. There is no effect of the long-term amplification of the hearing aid on deterioration of hearing comparing the aided ear and the unaided ear, but with high MPO of the aid, the patient should be followed up more frequently than with low MPO amplification.     

Societal effects of hearing aid fitting among the moderately hearing impaired

The objective of this study was to evaluate hearing aid fitting from a societal viewpoint, rather than the more traditional patient perspective. The effects of hearing aid fitting on generic quality of life (EuroQol), social functioning (SF36), auditory disability, productivity at paid and unpaid labour, and medical consumption, were assessed in a prospective study among 80 moderately hearing-impaired first-time hearing aid applicants. The study showed that hearing aid fitting solved problems with paid employment, but did not seem to affect unpaid work. Use of medical services remained relatively stable after first-time hearing aid fitting. The Amsterdam Inventory proved to be a useful questionnaire to assess the effects on hearing disability. No effects of hearing aid fitting on generic quality of life could be determined with the EuroQol, while hearing aid fitting did lead to an improvement in one aspect of generic quality of life; namely social functioning.