永久性周围性面瘫患者生活质量及焦虑抑郁情绪状态的临床研究  

Clinical research on the quality of life and emotion symptoms in patients with permanent peripheral facial paralysis

作　　者：余爵波 程泽星[1] 庄远岭[1] Yu Juebo;Cheng Zexing;Zhuang Yuanling(Department of Otolaryngology,the Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University,Yangzhou,Jiangsu 225001,China)

机构地区：[1]扬州大学附属医院耳鼻咽喉科,225001

出　　处：《中国基层医药》2019年第19期2356-2361,共6页Chinese Journal of Primary Medicine and Pharmacy

摘　　要：目的探讨永久性周围性面瘫(PPFP)对患者生活质量及焦虑抑郁症状的影响及其相关因素。方法选择扬州大学附属医院2017年1月至2018年1月治疗过的单侧PPFP患者79例(PPFP组)及健康体检者43例(对照组)为研究对象,以普适性量表-医学结局研究简表36项健康调查(SF-36)、中文版临床面部评价量表(FaCE)、Zung抑郁自评量表(SDS)及Zung焦虑自评量表(SAS)评分为工具,进行生活质量及抑郁状态的调查,分析PPFP患者生活质量及精神心理特征。结果SF-36调查显示,PPFP患者生命活力、社交功能、情感角色、心理健康4个维度的评分分别为(73.23±15.04)分、(72.41±15.46)分、(72.53±15.27)分、(73.35±14.54)分,均明显低于对照组的(97.56±3.76)分、(96.51±3.32)分、(97.09±2.49)分、(96.63±2.37)分(t=-10.506、-10.144、-10.505、-10.403,均P<0.001),但生理功能、生理职能、躯体疼痛、总体健康4个维度评分与对照组差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。FaCE调查显示,PPFP患者总分为(48.63±17.44)分,明显低于对照组的(100.00±0.00)分(t=-19.281,P<0.05)。PPFP组SDS评分为(48.43±11.57)分,高于对照组的(40.63±5.39)分,差异有统计学意义(t=4.174,P<0.001)。两组焦虑症状评分差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。相关性分析提示,FaCE与SF-36相关心理健康状况维度及SDS相关(r=-0.848~0.908,均P<0.001)。多元线性回归分析显示,婚姻状况(t=-2.442,P=0.017)、职业(t=-2.377,P=0.020)、年龄(t=-5.501,P=0.000)与PPFP患者抑郁症状评分呈负相关;有无联带运动(t=3.604,P=0.042)、House-Brackmann分级(HBGS)(t=2.116,P=0.038)、病程(t=4.152,P=0.000)与PPFP患者抑郁症状评分呈正相关。病程(t=-2.616,P=0.011)、HBGS(t=-6.523,P=0.000)与PPFP患者FaCE总评分呈负相关,有无联带运动(t=2.767,P=0.000)与PPFP患者FaCE总评分呈正相关。结论PPFP患者的生活质量较差并存在明显的心理健康问题。年龄、职业、婚姻状况、病程、HBGS程度、有无联带运�Objective To investigate the quality of life(QoL) and emotion symptoms(anxiety symptom and depressive symptom), and its influencing factors in patients with permanent peripheral facial paralysis(PPFP). Methods A case-control trial was conducted to evaluate the QoL status and emotion symptoms of 79 PPFP patients(PPFP group, disease course >12 months) between January 2017 and January 2018 from the Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, and 42 healthy individuals were selected as control group.The generic questionnaire medical outcomes study short-form 36 items health survey(SF-36), Chinese version of facial clinimetric evaluation(FaCE) scale, self-rating depression scale(SDS) and self-rating anxiety scale(SAS) were evaluated.The correlation among SF-36, SDS, SAS and FaCE was evaluated.SPSS 21.0 software was used to analyze the data. Results By the assessment of SF-36, the score of vitality[(73.23±15.04)points], social function[(72.41±15.46)points], role-emotion[(72.53±15.27)points] and mental health[(73.35±14.54)points] in four dimensions of the PPFP group were lower than those of the control group [(97.56±3.76)points,(96.51±3.32)points,(97.09±2.49)points and (96.63±2.37)points](t=-10.506,-10.144,-10.505,-10.403, all P<0.001), but the scores of physical function, role-physica, bodily pain and general health in four domains of the PPFP group were similar with those of the control group (all P>0.05). By the assessment of FaCE, the total score of the PPFP group was lower than those of the control group [(48.63±17.44)points vs.(100.00±0.00)points, t=-19.281, P<0.05]. The score of SDS in the PPFP group was higher than those of the control group[(48.43±11.57)points vs.(40.63±5.39)points](t=4.174, P<0.001), but the score of SAS had no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). According to the assessment of the correlation among SF-36, SDS, SAS and FaCE, the total scores of FaCE in the PPFP group was related only to SF-36 related mental health dimensions and SDS(r=-0.848~0.908,

关 键 词：面神经麻痹 生活质量 抑郁 焦虑 心理生理性障碍 心理学 临床 问卷调查 临床面部评价量表 

分 类 号：R745.12[医药卫生—神经病学与精神病学]