有创和无创方法治疗分泌性中耳炎的临床研究

目的 比较有创和无创方法治疗分泌性中耳炎的临床疗效.方法 将76例(94耳)分泌性中耳炎患者按随机数字表法分为两组,有创组38例(48耳),无创组38例(46耳).有创组行耳内窥镜下鼓膜切开置管抽取积液,并用α-糜蛋白酶和地塞米松溶液冲洗1～2次;无创组行鼻内窥镜下咽鼓管吹张并经咽鼓管咽口注入糜蛋白酶和地塞米松1～2次.比较两组的临床疗效.结果 随访6～12个月,有创组总有效率为95.8%(46/48),无创组总有效率为93.5%(43/46),两组总有效率比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);有创组鼓室导抗图恢复正常时间为(37.5±5.9)d,无创组为(38.6±6.1)d,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);有创组纯音测听检查听力提高(20.4±2.7)dB,无创组纯音测听检查听力提高(19.9±2.5)dB,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 有创和无创方法治疗分泌性中耳炎均有满意效果,医师可以根据患者具体情况选择合适的方案.

Abstract：

Objective To compare the clinical effects of invasive and non-invasive therapy in treatment of otitis media with effusion. Methods Seventy-six patients (94 ears) with otitis media with effusion were divided into two groups by random digits table. The invasive group (38 cases, 48 ears) was treated by oto-endoscopic myringotomy and grommet insertion and chymotrypsin with dexamethasone washing for 1-2 times; and the non-invasive group (38 cases, 46 ears) was treated by eustachian tube blowing under nasal endoscopy and injecting chymotrypsin and dexamethasone for 1-2 times. The clinical effects between the two groups were compared. Results The patients were followed up for 6-12 months. The total effective rate was 95.8%(46/48) in the invasive group and 93.5%(43/46) in the non-invasive group, the difference was not statistically significant (P ＞ 0.05 ). The ear pressure chart recovery time was (37.5 ± 5.9) d in the invasive group and (38.6 ± 6.1 ) d in the non-invasive group, the difference was not statistically significant (P ＞ 0.05 ). The pure tone audiometry hearing improved ( 20.4 ± 2.7 ) dB in the invasive group and ( 19.9 ±2.5) dB in the non-invasive group, the difference was not statistically significant (P ＞ 0.05 ). Conclusion Both of invasive and non-invasive therapy in treatment of otitis media with effusion have good results, the doctors should choose the appropriate solution according to the patients' condition.     

新生儿听力筛查中的假阳性问题

目的:探讨听力筛查假阳性的发生率和原因,以降低假阳性发生率。方法:2003年3月至2004年6月,用ERO-SCAN耳声发射仪(德国MAICO公司),采用快速自动筛查方法为50 271例新生儿行听力筛查,对听力筛查未通过者行ABR和耳科学检查,明确有无听力障碍及其程度。随访1年以上,分析135例未通过听力筛查的新生儿的听力学资料,按照假阳性新生儿占同期参加听力筛查的全部新生儿的比例,或按照假阳性新生儿占未通过听力筛查者的比例,分别计算听力筛查未通过患儿的假阳性率。结果:听力筛查50271例中,135例异常,ABR检查确诊31例有听力障碍,104例排除了听力障碍确定为假阳性。按照假阳性新生儿占同期参加听力筛查的全部新生儿的比例,听力筛查假阳性率为0.2%(104/50271);而按照假阳性新生儿占未通过听力筛查者的比例,听力筛查假阳性率为77.1%(104/135)。结论:随着听力筛查的广泛开展,听力筛查中遇到的问题也越来越多,虽然听力筛查中假阳性率很低,但其绝对数量不可忽视,特别是假阳性带来的一系列问题,如患儿家属的担心和害怕、增加患者的就诊次数和花费等,因此,应重视假阳性出现的原因,以合理的解释、处理和减少其发生率。