鼓膜穿孔患者两种咽鼓管功能测试结果比较

Comparison of Different Eustachian Tube Function Tests in Patients with Tympanic Membrane Perforation

郭冰雅;徐春晓;乔宇斐;商莹莹;倪道凤;

1:北京协和医院耳鼻咽喉科

摘要
目的比较声导抗咽鼓管功能压力测试法和咽鼓管测压(tubomanometry,TMM)测试鼓膜穿孔患者咽鼓管功能的差异,为术前咽鼓管功能评估提供依据。方法对28例(35耳)鼓膜紧张部穿孔患者(排除咽鼓管异常开放患者),采用声导抗咽鼓管功能压力测试法和不同鼻咽部压力(30mbar、40mbar、50mbar)咽鼓管测压两种方法检测咽鼓管功能,比较两种方法的结果。结果 35耳中声导抗咽鼓管功能压力测试法的阳性率为20%(7/35),30mbar鼻咽部压力下TMM测试的阳性率为51.43%(18/35),前者阳性率低于后者,差异有显著统计学意义(P=0.003),两种检查的一致率为62.86%,Kappa=0.270;40mbar鼻咽部压力下TMM测试的阳性率为40%(14/35),亦显著高于声导抗咽鼓管功能压力测试法(P=0.039),两者一致率为74.29%,Kappa=0.416;50mbar鼻咽部压力下TMM测试的阳性率为20%(7/35),两种方法阳性率差异无统计学意义(P=1.000),一致率为88.57%,Kappa=0.643。鼻咽部压力越低,TMM的阳性率越高,30、40与50mbar之间的差异均有统计学意义,30mbar与40mbar鼻咽部压力下的一致率为88.57%,Kappa=0.773;30mbar与50mbar鼻咽部压力下的一致率为68.57%,Kappa=0.382;40mbar和50mbar鼻咽部压力下的一致率为80%,Kappa=0.545。结论与声导抗咽鼓管功能压力测试法相比,TMM测试对咽鼓管功能异常(阻塞或延迟开放)有更高敏感性,且鼻咽部压力越低,TMM的敏感性越高。
关键词
鼓膜穿孔;咽鼓管功能;咽鼓管测压;声导抗测试
基金项目(Foundation):
作者
郭冰雅;徐春晓;乔宇斐;商莹莹;倪道凤;
参考文献

1 Forseni FM,Hultcrantz M.Possible inflammatory mediators in tympanosclerosis development[J].International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology,2002,63:149.

2 Kouwen H,van Balen FA,Dejonckere PH.Functional tubal therapy for persistent otitis media with effusion in children:myth or evidence[J]?International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology,2005,69:943.

3彭宏,杨乐,郑明奋,等.慢性中耳炎鼓膜紧张部穿孔患者的咽鼓管功能的评价[J].中华耳科学杂志,2016,14:219.

4 Sudhoff H,Ockermann T,Mikolajczyk R,et al.Clinical and experimental considerations for evaluation of eustachian tube physiology[J].HNO,2009,57:428.

5 Schroder S,Lehmann M,Korbmacher D,et al.Evaluation of tubomanometry as a routine diagnostic tool for chronic obstructive eustachian tube dysfunction[J].Clinical Otolaryngology,2016,40,691.

6 Matthew E.Zou CC,Baker C,et al.The repeatability of tests of eustachian tube function in healthy ears[J].Laryngoscope,2017,127:2619.

7 Schilder AGM,Bhutta MF,Butler CC,et al.Eustachian tube dysfunction:consensus statement on definition,types,clinical presentation and diagnosis[J].Clinical Otolaryngology,2015,40:407.