摘要
【目的】比较高压氧治疗突聋时,采用加压阶段吸氧气操舱法与加压阶段吸空气操舱法的临床疗效。【方法】197例突聋患者分为两组,99例采用加压阶段吸空气操舱法,98例采用加压阶段吸氧气操舱法,观察并比较两组病人的治疗效果。【结果】两组病人听力恢复率和耳鸣消失率为:加压阶段吸氧气法分别为97%和98%,明显优于加压阶段吸空气法的86%和87%,两组比较有显著性差异(P<0.05);两组患者眩晕康复情况差异无显著性。【结论】高压氧治疗突聋时,加压阶段吸氧气操舱法明显优于吸空气法,提倡在应用空气加压舱进行常规高压氧治疗时应在加压阶段吸入氧气。
[Objective]To compare the curative effect of outburst deaf patients treated with hyperbaric oxygen in the method of inspiring oxygen in operating cabin during compressed stage. [Methods]One hundred ninety-seven cases were divided into two groups: 99 cases treated with hyperbaric oxygen in inspiring air during compressed stage,and the other group, 98 cases treated with hyperbaric oxygen in inspiring oxygen during compressed stage, and then to compare the curative effect of two groups. [Results]The resumed ratio of audition in the cases treated with inspiring oxygen during compressed stage was 97%, and that of the patients treated with inspiring air was 86%. there was statistic significance ( P d0.05). The cured ratio of tinnitus of inspiring oxygen during compressed stage was 98%, significantly better than 87% of inspiring air during compressed stage ( P d0. 05). [Conclusion]The curative effect of the method of inspiring oxygen during compressed stage is better than the method of inspiring air during compressed stage. We 'd better inspire oxygen during compressed stage.
出处
《医学临床研究》
CAS
2005年第11期1504-1505,共2页
Journal of Clinical Research
关键词
聋
突发性/治疗
高压氧
deafness,sudden/TH
hyperbaric oxygenation