骨导ABR与1000Hz声导抗对婴儿传导性聋检出率比较  

Comparison between bone-conduction ABR and 1000 Hz tympanomentry in detecting conductive hearing loss

作　　者：张国军[1] 龚松阳 

机构地区：[1]浙江中医药大学,杭州310053

出　　处：《中华耳科学杂志》2016年第3期374-377,共4页Chinese Journal of Otology

基　　金：浙江中医药大学科研基金项目;项目号2014ZY27~~

摘　　要：目的比较骨导ABR与1000Hz声导抗对于6月龄以内轻、中度听力损失的婴儿听力损失性质检出率的差异。方法选取6月龄以内OAE未通过,外耳道正常,click-ABR检查结果为正常和轻、中度耳聋婴儿共25名。将受试者按照听力损失的程度分为轻度、中度组,并将click-ABR检查结果为正常的婴儿设为对照组,分别用骨导ABR和1000Hz声导抗进行测试,选用数理统计方法,比较三组受试者中骨导ABR与1000Hz声导抗对于传导性耳聋检出率的区别。结果 6月龄以内轻、中度听力损失的婴儿使用骨导ABR和1000Hz声导抗两者u检验P>0.05,1000Hz声导抗和骨导ABR在传导性耳聋的检出率比较上无显著差异。结论 6月龄以内婴儿传导性耳聋的诊断可以使用骨导ABR或1000Hz声导抗。Objective To compare bone-conduction ABR and 1000 Hz tympanometry in detecting mild to moderate heating loss in infants younger than 6 months. Methods Infants younger than 6 months （n=25） who had failed OAE screen- ing, while the external auditory canal was normal and click-ABRs were normal or indicating mild or moderately deafness, were included in this study. The participants were divided into mild and moderate hearing loss groups based on click-ABR results, while those with normal click-ABRs served as controls. All participants received bone-conduction ABR and 1000 Hz tympanometry tests and the difference in detecting conductive hearing loss by the two test modalities was analyzed. Re- sults Bone-conduction ABRs and 1000 Hz tympanometry showed no significant difference in detecting conductive hearing loss （u-test, P 〉 0.05）. Conclusion Both 1000 Hz tympanometry and bone-conduction ABR can be used in the diagnosis of conductive deafness in infants younger than 6 months.

关 键 词：骨导ABR 1000Hz声导抗 听力损失程度 

分 类 号：R764[医药卫生—耳鼻咽喉科]