极重度感音神经性聋佩戴助听器与人工耳蜗植入患儿残余听力的比较分析

目的:通过回顾性比较分析极重度感音神经性聋患儿接受佩戴助听器和人工耳蜗植入手术2种不同干预方式人群的听力学评估参数,探讨极重度感音神经性聋患儿有效残余听力的临床判断方法.方法:选取听力学评估和言语康复训练资料完整的22例双耳极重度感音神经性聋患儿,其中10例佩戴助听器并接受超过3个月的言语康复训练,另外12例接受人工耳蜗植入手术,其中有10例年龄区间与佩戴助听器组一致.佩戴助听器组患儿,根据言语康复训练效果分为良好(7例)和较差(3例),分别统计其佩戴助听器前ASSR和听力言语康复训练期间裸耳纯音测听在500、1000、2000、4000 Hz 4个频点的听阈阈值情况.年龄与佩戴助听器组一致的10例接受人工耳蜗植入术患儿,根据术前有否佩戴助听器情况,分为曾佩戴助听器但听力言语康复效果差者(5例)和未接受佩戴助听器者(5例),分别统计其佩戴助听器前和(或)手术前的ASSR在500、1000、2000、4000 Hz 4个频点的听阈阈值情况.结果:①ASSR的阈值情况.佩戴助听器且言语康复训练效果良好的7例(14耳)患儿,平均每耳有2.71个频点可引出ASSR反应,所引出的ASSR平均阈值为(110.92±7.43 )dB HL;佩戴助听器言语康复训练效果较差的3例患儿,再加上曾佩戴助听器但听力言语康复效果差而接受人工耳蜗植入术的5例,共8例(16耳),平均每耳只有1.06个频点可引出ASSR反应,所引出的ASSR平均阈值为(110.88±8.52 )dB HL.②裸耳纯音测听情况.佩戴助听器且言语康复训练效果良好的7例(14耳)患儿,所测频点的平均听阈为(96.11±7.81) dB HL;其中,每耳平均有3个频率点的裸耳纯音测听阈值≤100 dB HL.而在效果差的3例(6耳)患儿中,所测频点的平均听阈为(112.19±5.15) dB HL,裸耳纯音测听阈值≤100 dB HL耳的数量为0.结论:500、1000、2000、4000 Hz 各频率引出ASSR的频点数量和裸耳纯音测听阈值≤100 dB HL的数量,是临床上判断极重度感音神经性聋患儿有否存在可利用助听残余听力的有效指标.     

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.     

听觉剥夺效应及对听力康复的影响

对称性听力损失 (根据纯音听阈和言语识别率 )的患者如果仅单耳佩戴助听器 ,那么未助听耳的言语识别率可能在随后的时间里呈进行性的下降 ,Ｓｉｌｍａｎ(1984)将这种现象称作迟发性听觉剥夺 (ｌａｔｅ -ｏｎｓｅｔａｕｄｉｔｏｒｙｄｅｐｒｉｖａｔｉｏｎ)。他首先报道了 44例双侧中重度感音神经性聋的男性 ,单耳佩戴助听器后 4到 5年有 17例对侧耳发生显著的言语识别率下降 ,并提出这一概念 ,值得注意的是纯音听阈和言语识别阈几乎没有改变[1 ] 。此后许多研究也得出相似的结果 ,并深入探讨了它的发生机制及预防措施。 1996年 15位著名听力…     

感音神经性听力损失患者助听后言语感知能力的评价

目的本研究对感音神经性听力损失患者助听器选配后的言语识别能力进行评价,并分析听力损失程度与年龄对助听后言语康复效果的影响。方法 30名感音神经性听力损失受试者,男13名,女17名,年龄26-86岁,双侧听力损失程度对称,双耳0.5-4 k Hz频率下纯音听力阈值(PTA0.5-4 k Hz)平均值40~75 d B HL。所有受试者均选配PhonakBolero Q50系列耳背式助听器。使用汉语普通话言语测试软件(Mandarin Speech Test Materials,MSTMs)进行裸耳和助听后安静与噪声环境下言语识别能力测试。结果(1)助听后,安静环境下的双音节识别率平均提高35.1±19.5%;噪声环境下语句识别率平均提高32.8±22.8%;(2)助听后言语识别能力与听力损失程度呈显著负相关关系;(3)助听优势高于平均水平的受试者纯音听阈均大于50 d B HL,但存在个体差异大的特点。结论助听器选配可以有效帮助感音神经性听力损失患者提高言语识别能力,但听力损失程度不是唯一影响助听效果的因素,助听后言语识别能力的改善存在较大个体差异。     

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     

感音神经性听力损失成年人短音诱发的听性脑干反应阈研究

目的 研究感音神经性听力损失成年人气导和骨导短音诱发的ABR反应阈与纯音听阈的关系,探讨短音ABR在估计纯音听阈方面的应用价值.方法 对24例(27耳)感音神经性听力损失成年人行耳鼻咽喉科常规体检、纯音测听、声导抗测试后,应用SmartEP听觉诱发电位仪记录受试者气导和骨导短音ABR.结果 感音神经性听力损失成年人短音ABR的反应阈与纯音听阈呈线性相关,气导的线性相关性好于骨导.500、1 000、2 000、4 000 Hz气导的线性相关系数分别为0.80、0.88、0.92、0.85,骨导的线性相关系数分别为0.58、0.49、0.54、0.84.500、1 000、2 000、4 000 Hz短音ABR气骨导反应阈差分别为2.1±10.2、-3.9±10.6、0.9±7.0、3.4±3.3 dB,除4 000 Hz外,各频率气导与骨导短音ABR反应阈差异无显著统计学意义.结论 短音ABR的反应阈可以用于估计纯音听阈.     

传导性或混合性耳聋患者佩戴骨锚式助听器软带的预期效果

目的 研究分析传导性或混合性耳聋患者进行佩戴骨锚式助听器(BAHA)软带后的听力改善情况。方法 参与研究者62例, 在声场进行BAHA软带佩戴前后纯音听力测试及问卷调查, 了解患者佩戴BAHA后的听力情况及主观感受。结果 62例佩戴BAHA后0.25～4 kHz气导听力均得到了不同程度提高, 对声音的方向感及噪声下言语交流能力提高。结论 BAHA能改善传导性聋或混合性聋患者的听力。     

单耳听力损失患者听力障碍量表评分与纯音听阈相关性研究

目的 探讨单耳听力损失(unilateral hearing loss, UHL)患者听力障碍量表(hearing handicap inventory, HHI)评分与纯音听阈的相关性及影响因素。方法 纳入本院门诊就诊未行助听干预的UHL患者56例，听力减退病程超过1个月，好耳气导听阈<20 dB HL,差耳听阈≥35 dB HL。采用病史调查表、视觉模拟量表(visual analog scale, VAS)及听力障碍量表了解患者听力、交流障碍程度，并与纯音听阈比较，分析其特征。结果 56例患者中，伴耳鸣患者27例(48.21%),自觉伴睡眠障碍者23例(41.07%),同时患有其他慢性病者26例(46.43%)。56例好耳平均听阈为10.99±4.31 dB HL,差耳平均听阈为66.32±26.21 dB HL,HHI平均得分20.36±15.41分，VAS平均得分3.64±2.34分。纯音听阈与HHI评分、VAS评分无明显相关性(P>0.05),HHI量表得分与VAS评分的相关系数为0.77(P<0.01)。HHI量表<17分(无听力障碍)者30例占5...     

助听器干预对西藏高原地区听障患者的疗效分析

目的 探讨助听器干预对久居(超过40年)西藏高原地区听障患者的疗效情况。方法 选取49例(63耳)助听器佩戴者进行分析，包括听力情况、听阈、助听器后言语及助听器效果国际问卷主观感受相关分析等，并对助听器补偿效果进行了综合评价。结果 63耳中，中度听力损失34耳，重度听力损失25耳，极重度听力损失4耳。其中单耳35例，问卷平均得分(20.34±4.39)分；双耳14例，问卷平均得分(27.07±4.16)分；双耳得分高于单耳分数。助听言语分辨率与问卷主观评估呈正相关(r=0.528,P<0.01)。助听阈值显示大多数患耳未得到最佳的听力补偿，但助听器干预前后听力比较具有统计学意义(P<0.05),高频听力补偿更为明显。助听后言语测听显示，助听后言语最大分辨率较助听前高(P<0.05)。结论 高原地区听障者对助听器的使用客观听力参数与主观评价相对一致，助听效果较为显著而且双耳验配较单耳验配更具优势，总体助听效果持肯定态度。     

听力损失老年人佩戴助听器前后皮层听觉诱发电位与言语感知的研究

目的 探讨皮层听觉诱发电位(cortical auditory evoked potential,CAEP)用于中度与重度听力损失老年人助听前后言语识别能力评估的可靠性和有效性.方法 26例中度与重度听力损失老年人均验配同一型号测试用助听器,于佩戴助听器前后在声场中分别测试/m/、/g/、/t/三个刺激声在65 dB ...     

The Speech,Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ)

The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) is designed to measure a range of hearing disabilities across several domains. Particular attention is given to hearing speech in a variety of competing contexts, and to the directional, distance and movement components of spatial hearing. In addition, the abilities both to segregate sounds and to attend to simultaneous speech streams are assessed, reflecting the reality of hearing in the everyday world. Qualities of hearing experience include ease of listening, and the naturalness, clarity and identifiability of different speakers, different musical pieces and instruments, and different everyday sounds. Application of the SSQ to 153 new clinic clients prior to hearing aid fitting showed that the greatest difficulty was experienced with simultaneous speech streams, ease of listening, listening in groups and in noise, and judging distance and movement. SSQ ratings were compared with an independent measure of handicap. After differences in hearing level were controlled for, it was found that identification, attention and effort problems, as well as spatial hearing problems, feature prominently in the disability-handicap relationship, along with certain features of speech hearing. The results implicate aspects of temporal and spatial dynamics of hearing disability in the experience of handicap. The SSQ shows promise as an instrument for evaluating interventions of various kinds, particularly (but not exclusively) those that implicate binaural function.     

The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ)

The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) is designed to measure a range of hearing disabilities across several domains. Particular attention is given to hearing speech in a variety of competing contexts, and to the directional, distance and movement components of spatial hearing. In addition, the abilities both to segregate sounds and to attend to simultaneous speech streams are assessed, reflecting the reality of hearing in the everyday world. Qualities of hearing experience include ease of listening, and the naturalness, clarity and identifiability of different speakers, different musical pieces and instruments, and different everyday sounds. Application of the SSQ to 153 new clinic clients prior to hearing aid fitting showed that the greatest difficulty was experienced with simultaneous speech streams, ease of listening, listening in groups and in noise, and judging distance and movement. SSQ ratings were compared with an independent measure of handicap. After differences in hearing level were controlled for, it was found that identification, attention and effort problems, as well as spatial hearing problems, feature prominently in the disability handicap relationship,. along with certain features of speech hearing. The results implicate aspects of temporal and spatial dynamics of hearing disability in the experience of handicap. The SSQ shows promise as an instrument for evaluating interventions of various kinds, particularly (but not exclusively) those that implicate binaural function.     

Unilateral and bilateral cochlear implants and the implant-plus-hearing-aid profile: Comparing self-assessed and measured abilities

Patients fitted with one (CI) versus two (CI+CI) cochlear implants, and those fitted with one implant who retain a hearing aid in the non-implanted ear (CI+HA), were compared using the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ) (Gatehouse & Noble, 2004). The CI+CI profile yielded significantly higher ability ratings than the CI profile in the spatial hearing domain, and on most aspects of other qualities of hearing (segregation, naturalness, and listening effort). A subset of patients completed the SSQ prior to implantation, and the CI+CI profile showed consistently greater improvement than the CI profile across all domains. Patients in the CI+HA group self-rated no differently from the CI group, post-implant. Measured speech perception and localization performance showed some parallels with the self-rating outcomes. Overall, a unilateral CI provided significant benefit across most hearing functions reflected in the SSQ. Bilateral implantation offered further benefit across a substantial range of those functions.     

Assessment of basal sound identification skills and communication abilities in profoundly deaf children fitted with hearing aids or a cochlear implant

Basal auditory functions and early verbal communication skills were examined in young, profoundly deaf children with hearing aids or a cochlear implant. The hearing aid users (n = 23) were subdivided on the basis of their (unaided) hearing thresholds into: group A (pure tone average (PTA) at 0.5, 1 and 2 kHz: 90–100 dB HL); group B (PTA: 100–110 dB HL); and group C (PTA > 110 dB HL). All the children with a cochlear implant (n = 20) had a profound sensorineural hearing loss with a PTA that exceeded 120 dB HL. Functional hearing was evaluated by means of basal sound identification. The child’s communication abilities with hearing aids or a cochlear implant were assessed using structured observations on the Scales of Early Communication Skills for Hearing Impaired Children. The basal auditory functions on a sound identification level improved over time in the cochlear implant users and groups A and B. Hardly any improvement was seen in group C. The performance of all the groups (either hearing aid or cochlear implant) on the Scales of Early Communication Skills for Hearing Impaired Children at 6 months after fitting the device and at later evaluations, was close to the average level for their age.     

全植入式助听器治疗中重度耳聋

目的 探讨全植入式助听器(Carina)治疗中重度和重度耳聋的安全性和效果.方法 分析随访12个月以上的三例接受全植入式助听器手术的中重度至重度耳聋患者术后康复的效果.比较术前术后纯音测听和言语测听的差异,观察植入体日常使用情况及与传统助听器效果的比较.结果 手术顺利,无并发症.术后手术侧无助听听阈(听力级,下同)平均升高8.3 dB,四个频率(0.5、1、2、4 kHz)纯音听阈功能性增益平均为35.4 dB,言语听阈平均降低22.5 dB,患者主观满意度评分明显高于传统助听器.结论 全植入式助听器是治疗中重度和重度耳聋患者的有效方法 ,其远期疗效需要进一步观察.     

Hearing in patients with intracanalicular vestibular schwannomas

This paper reports data on the spontaneous course of hearing in 156 patients with purely intracanalicular vestibular schwannomas. The mean pure tone average (PTA) was 51 dB HL and the mean speech discrimination score (SDS) 60% at diagnosis. The risk of a significant subsequent hearing loss (>or=10 dB PTA or >or=10% SDS) was 54% during 4.6 years of observation. Patients with normal speech discrimination at diagnosis had a significantly smaller risk of loosing hearing. The hearing loss at diagnosis and during observation was not related to age, gender, diagnostic tumor size, tumor- induced expansion of the internal auditory canal or tumor sublocalization (fundus, central or porus). However, the loss of PTA was smaller in shrinking tumors and the PTA deterioration rate correlated with the volumetric tumor growth rate. After 4.6 years observation, the PTA had increased by 14 dB to 65 dB HL, and the SDS reduced by 17% to 43%. The proportion of patients eligible for hearing preservation treatment as determined by word recognition score class I (70-100% SDS) was reduced to 28% (a 44% reduction), and by AAO-HNS class A to 9% (a 53% reduction).     

Unilateral and bilateral cochlear implants and the implant-plus-hearing-aid profile: comparing self-assessed and measured abilities

Patients fitted with one (CI) versus two (CI+CI) cochlear implants, and those fitted with one implant who retain a hearing aid in the non-implanted ear (CI+HA), were compared using the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ) (Gatehouse & Noble, 2004). The CI+CI profile yielded significantly higher ability ratings than the CI profile in the spatial hearing domain, and on most aspects of other qualities of hearing (segregation, naturalness, and listening effort). A subset of patients completed the SSQ prior to implantation, and the CI+CI profile showed consistently greater improvement than the CI profile across all domains. Patients in the CI+HA group self-rated no differently from the CI group, post-implant. Measured speech perception and localization performance showed some parallels with the self-rating outcomes. Overall, a unilateral CI provided significant benefit across most hearing functions reflected in the SSQ. Bilateral implantation offered further benefit across a substantial range of those functions.     

Low-frequency gain compensation in directional hearing aids

Hearing aids currently available on the market with both omnidirectional and directional microphone modes often have reduced amplification in the low frequencies when in directional microphone mode due to better phase matching. The effects of this low-frequency gain reduction for individuals with hearing loss in the low frequencies was of primary interest. Changes in sound quality for quiet listening environments following gain compensation in the low frequencies was of secondary interest. Thirty participants were fit with bilateral in-the-ear hearing aids, which were programmed in three ways while in directional microphone mode: no-gain compensation, adaptive-gain compensation, and full-gain compensation. All participants were tested with speech in noise tasks. Participants also made sound quality judgments based on monaural recordings made from the hearing aid. Results support a need for gain compensation for individuals with low-frequency hearing loss of greater than 40 dB HL.     

可接受噪声级测试在单、双耳佩戴助听器效果评估中的应用

目的 通过比较双侧中重度听力损失患者在单、双耳助听下的可接受噪声级(acceptable noise level,ANL),探讨ANL对助听器验配及预测助听效果的作用.方法 选取15例双侧中重度听力损失患者,分别测得双耳未助听、左耳助听、右耳助听和双耳助听状态下的最舒适响度级(most comfortable levels,MCL)、最大背景噪声级(background noise level,BNL),并计算得到ANL值(ANL=MCL-BNL),对结果进行统计学分析.结果 15例受试者双耳未助听、左耳助听、右耳助听及双耳助听四种状态下测得的ANL值分别为18.87±5.26、12.60±2.47、12.00±2.90、5.13±1.25 dB S/N;MCL值分别为80.40±9.28、63.73±5.15、62.27±5.36、61.80±6.05 dB HL;BNL值分别为61.67±6.14、51.13±3.94、50.27±4.50、56.67±5.16 dB HL;左耳助听与右耳助听下的ANL值差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);单、双耳助听下与未助听的ANL值差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05);双耳助听状态下ANL值显著低于单耳助听(P<0.05).结论 ANL值较低耳更利于助听器验配,佩戴助听器能有效提高听障患者对噪声的接受能力,并且双耳佩戴助听器的效果明显优于单耳.