BPPV手法复位与全自动设备复位之间差异性的随机对照研究  

A prospective randomized controlled study of the difference between BPPV manual reduction and automatic device reduction

作　　者：骆志雅 刘秀丽[1] 石林[1] 王路阳[1] 韩威[1] 田丽娟 邓万锦 LUO Zhiya;LIU Xiuli;SHI Lin;WANG Luyang;HAN Wei;TIAN Lijuan;DENG Wanj in(Department of Otolaryngology,Vertigo Clinic Treatment Center,the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University,Dalian,116000,China)

机构地区：[1]大连医科大学附属第一医院耳鼻咽喉科,辽宁大连116000

出　　处：《临床耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志》2022年第4期285-288,共4页Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology Head And Neck Surgery

摘　　要：目的:探讨手法复位与全自动设备复位在良性阵发性位置性眩晕(BPPV)治疗上的差异性,为临床上选择BPPV治疗方法提供循证医学依据。方法:选取202例BPPV患者,采用随机数字表法分为两组,A组102例实施手法复位,B组100例实施全自动设备复位,并在复位治疗后7~10 d复诊。评估两组间治疗总体有效率、视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分、不良反应发生率、治疗时间的差异性。结果:A、B组总体有效率分别为98.03%和91.00%,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P=0.027);A、B组治疗前后VAS评分差值分别为6(4)分和5(3)分,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P=0.002);A、B组不良反应发生率分别4.90%和8.00%,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P=0.37);A、B组治疗时间分别为6.0(1.0)min和8.0(2.0)min,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论:手法与全自动设备复位均可有效改善BPPV患者的临床症状,但是对于有经验的临床医生来说仍建议选择手法复位。Objective:To investigate the difference between manual reduction and automatic device reduction in the treatment of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo(BPPV),and to provide evidence-based medicine for the clinical choice of BPPV treatment.Methods:Two hundred and two BPPV patients who came to the hospital for diagnosis and treatment were collected and divided into two groups by random number table method.Group A had 102 cases for manual reduction,and group B had 100 cases for automatic device reduction.Both groups were given the same medicine-assisted treatment.All patients were followed up 7 to 10 days after reduction treatment.To evaluate the differences in the overall effective rate of treatment,visual analog scale(VAS),incidence of adverse reactions,treatment time were compared between the two groups.Results:The overall effective rate was 98.03%and 91.00%in group A and group B,respectively,group A was slightly higher than group B(P=0.027);the difference in VAS scores before and after treatment:group A was 6(4)points,group B was 5(3),group A is greater than group B(P=0.002);adverse reaction rates in groups A and B were 4.90%and 8.00%,respectively,group B was slightly higher than group A(P=0.37);treatment time:group A 6.0(1.0)min in group A and 8.0(2.0)min in group B,group A was significantly shorter than group B(P<0.01).Conclusion:Both manual and fully automatic device reduction can effectively improve the clinical symptoms of BPPV patients,but for physicians with extensive clinical experience it is recommended to choose manual reduction.

关 键 词：良性阵发性位置性眩晕 手法复位 全自动设备复位 

分 类 号：R764.3[医药卫生—耳鼻咽喉科]