您的位置：山东大学 -> 科技期刊社 -> 《山东大学学报（医学版）》

山东大学学报 (医学版) ›› 2022, Vol. 60 ›› Issue (8): 30-33.doi: 10.6040/j.issn.1671-7554.0.2021.1171

• 临床医学 • 上一篇    下一篇

半规管阻塞术与迷路切除术治疗70例晚期顽固性梅尼埃病的疗效

田超群,吕亚峰,李霄飞,宋永栋,孔利刚,樊兆民,王海波,张道宫   

  1. 山东大学附属山东省耳鼻喉医院眩晕疾病科, 山东 济南 250022
  • 发布日期:2022-07-27
  • 通讯作者: 张道宫. E-mail:zhangdaogong1978@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(82171150);山东省自然科学基金(ZR2020MH17);山东省泰山学者工程资助(ts20130913)

Comparison of the efficacy between semicircular canal plugging and labyrinthectomy for intractable Menieres disease

TIAN Chaoqun1, LYU Yafeng1, LI Xiaofei1, SONG Yongdong1, KONG Ligang1, FAN Zhaomin1, WANG Haibo, ZHANG Daogong   

  1. Department of Vertigo Disease, Shandong Provincial ENT Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan 250022, Shandong, China
  • Published:2022-07-27

PDF (PC)

279

摘要： 目的 比较半规管阻塞术与迷路切除术治疗晚期顽固性梅尼埃病的远期疗效。 方法 回顾性分析2015年3月至2016年3月接受半规管阻塞术(n=56)和迷路切除术(n=14)治疗的70例晚期顽固性梅尼埃病患者的临床资料,比较半规管阻塞术(半规管阻塞术组)和迷路切除术(迷路切除术组)两种手术方式的治疗效果。 结果 半规管阻塞术组眩晕总控制率为96.4%(54/56),其中A级控晕率为80.4%(45/56)、B级控晕率为16.1%(9/56);迷路切除组眩晕总控制率为100%(14/14),所有患者均为A级控制;两组眩晕控制有效率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。半规管阻塞术组听力下降率为28.6%(16/56),迷路切除组听力损失率为100%(14/14),半规管阻塞术组听力损失率低于迷路切除组(P<0.001)。半规管手术组手术前、后颈源性/眼源性前庭肌源性电位(c/oVEMP)的异常率差异无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。迷路切除术组手术前、后颈源性/眼源性前庭肌源性电位的异常率差异有统计学意义(P=0.014;P=0.006)。半规管阻塞术组、迷路切除组的平衡恢复时间分别为(16.5±5.19)d、(25.07±7.87)d,差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。 结论 半规管阻塞术治疗晚期顽固性梅尼埃病的疗效优于迷路切除术。

关键词: 半规管阻塞术, 迷路切除术, 梅尼埃病, 手术, 眩晕

Abstract: Objective To compare the long-term efficacy of semicircular canal plugging(SCP)versus labyrinthectomy in the treatment of intractable Menieres disease(MD). Methods A total of 70 MD patients with complete medical document who underwent SCP(n=56)and labyrinthectomy(n=14)in our hospital during March 2015 and March 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. The outcomes after two-year follow-up were compared. Results The total rate of vertigo control in the SCP group was 96.4%(54/56), with 45 cases(80.4%)of class A control and 9(16.1%)of class B control, while the total rate of vertigo control in the labyrinthectomy group was 100%(14/14), and all cases had class A control, with no significant difference between the two groups(P>0.05). The rat of hearing loss in the SCP group was 28.6%(16/56), while all cases in the labyrinthectomy group lost their hearing(14/14), and the rate was lower in the SCP group than in the labyrinthectomy group(P<0.001). There were no significant differences in the abnormality rates of cVEMP and oVEMP in the SCP group before and after surgery(P>0.05), while the differences were significant in the labyrinthectomy group(P=0.014; P=0.006). The time of balance recovery was(16.5±5.19 )days in the SCP group and(25.07±7.87)days in the labyrinthectomy group, which was significantly different(P<0.001). Conclusion SCP is more effective than labyrinthectomy in the treatment of intractable advanced MD.

Key words: Semicircular canal plugging, Labyrinthectomy, Ménières disease, Surgery, Vertigo

中图分类号: 

  • R764.33
[1] Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China [J]. Lancet, 2020, 395(10223): 497-506.
[2] De Luca P, Cassandro C, Ralli M, et al. Dietary restriction for the treatment of Menieres disease [J]. Transl Med UniSa, 2020, 22: 5-9. eCollection 2020 May.
[3] Espinosa-Sanchez JM, Lopez-Escamez JA. The pharmacological management of vertigo in Menieres disease [J]. Expert Opin Pharmacother, 2020, 1(14): 1753-1763
[4] Sajjadi H, Paparella MM. Menieres disease [J]. Lancet, 2008, 372(9636): 406-414.
[5] Zhang D, Lv Y, Han Y, et al. Long-term outcomes of triple semicircular canal plugging for the treatment of intractable Menieres disease: a single center experience of 361 cases [J]. J Vestib Res, 2019, 29(6): 315-322.
[6] 中华耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志编辑委员会, 中华医学会耳鼻咽喉科学分会. 梅尼埃病的诊断依据和疗效评估(2006年,贵阳)[J]. 中华耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志, 2007, 42(3): 163-172.
[7] Zhang D, Fan Z, Han Y, et al. Triple semicircular canal plugging: a novel modality for the treatment of intractable Menieres disease [J]. Acta Otolaryngol, 2016, 136(12): 1230-1235.
[8] Zhang D, Fan Z, Han Y, et al. Long-term efficacy of triple semicircular canal occlusion in the treatment of intractable Menieres disease [J]. Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi, 2015, 50(9): 733-737.
[9] Sood AJ, Lambert PR, Nguyen SA, et al. Endolymphatic sac surgery for Menieres disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. Otol Neurotol, 2014, 35(6): 1033-1045.
[10] Cooper MW, Kaylie DM. Is Endolymphatic sac surgery beneficial for Menieres disease [J]. Laryngoscope, 2020, 130(12): 2738-2739.
[11] Pang B, Costeloe A, Jackson NM, et al. Incidence of developing contralateral Menieres disease in patients undergoing transmastoid labyrinthectomy for unilateral Menieres disease [J]. Ear Nose Throat J, 2021, 100(2): 86-89.
[12] Bergmark RW, Semco RS, Abdul-Aziz D, et al. Transmatoid labyrinthectomy for Menières disease: experience and outcomes [J]. Otol Neurotol, 2020, 41(10): 1413-1418.
[13] Scarpa A, Ralli M, De Bonis E, et al. Pharmacological, surgical and diagnostic innovations in Menieres disease: a review [J]. Transl Med UniSa, 2020, 1(23): 48-52.
[14] Kitahara T. Evidence of surgical treatments for intractable Menieres disease [J]. Auris Nasus Larynx, 2018, 45(3): 393-398.
[15] Deveze A, Montava M, Lopez C, et al. Vestibular compensation following vestibular neurotomy [J]. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis, 2015, 132(4): 197-203.
[16] Lyu Y, Zhang D, Li X, et al. Dexamethasone protects the hearing of Menieres disease patients after triple semicircular canal plugging [J]. Acta Otolaryngol, 2020, 140(10): 803-807.
[17] Li X, Lv Y, Wang R, et al. Intraoperative auditory brainstem response monitoring during semicircular canal plugging surgery in treatment of Menieres disease [J]. Acta Otolaryngol, 2021, 141(1): 73-77.
[18] Lee HJ, Lee JM, Shim DB, et al. Is early progression to bilateral involvement in Menieres disease a poor prognostic indicator? [J]. Otol Neurotol, 2019, 40(10): 1333-1338.
[19] Zhang D, Lv Y, Han Y, et al. Revision surgery after triple semicircular canal plugging and morphologic changes of vestibular organ [J]. Sci Rep, 2019, 9(1): 19397. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-55810-7.
[20] Yu Z, Mcintosh JM, Sadeghi SG, et al. Efferent synaptic transmission at the vestibular type II hair cell synapse [J]. J Neurophysiol, 2020, 124(2): 360-374.
[21] Wijesinghe R, Camp A. The intrinsic plasticity of medial vestibular nucleus neurons during vestibular compensation-a systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. Syst Rev, 2020, 9(1):145. doi: 10.1186/s13643-020-01399-2.
[22] Mao DH, He ZM, Xuan W, et al. Effect and mechanism of BDNF/TrkB signaling on vestibular compensation [J]. Bioengineered. 2021, 12(2): 11823-11836.
[23] Dutia MB. Mechanisms of vestibular compensation: recent advances [J]. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2010, 18(5): 420-424.
[24] Fukuda J, Matsuda K, Sato G, et al. Effects of betahistine on the development of vestibular compensation after unilateral labyrinthectomy in rats [J]. Brain Sci, 2021, 11(3): 360. doi: 10.3390/brainsci11030360.
[25] Smith PF. Why the cerebellar shutdown/clampdown hypothesis of vestibular compensation is inconsistent with neurophysiological evidence [J]. J Vestib Res, 2020, 30(5): 295-303.
[1] 徐宁宇 王磊 郝恩魁 苏国海. STEMI患者急诊PCI前口服阿托伐他汀对炎症介质及左心室功能的影响[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2209, 47(6): 69-72.
[2] 张小艳 李刚 王令平. 不同剂量舒芬太尼对脊柱手术患者全麻诱导期血流动力学及血浆皮质醇的影响[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2209, 47(6): 76-79.
[3] 匡风霞,赵晓虹,韩宝佳,高成杰. 对控制机器人甲状腺癌根治术患者手术应激反应麻醉深度的探讨[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(5): 81-86.
[4] 孙振国,田辉. 加速康复外科指导下微创食管癌切除术流程优化之齐鲁实践[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(11): 33-37.
[5] 高树庚. 加速康复外科在肺癌围术期管理中的应用[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(11): 1-10.
[6] 韩丁培,严越,曹羽钦,孙昕,胡琰霞,汪敏娴,罗艳,施咏梅,谢青,杭钧彪,李鹤成. 加速康复外科理念在胸外科临床实践指导的瑞金医院专家共识[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(11): 11-16.
[7] 丁子琛,王浩桦,周立雯,丛慧文,李承圣,包绮晗,杨毅,王廉源,王素珍,石福艳. 基于贝叶斯累加回归树模型的非小细胞肺癌患者个性化疗效研究[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(10): 92-98.
[8] 仲明惟,胡三元. 我国腹腔镜技术治疗肥胖症手术方式的探索[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2021, 59(9): 72-77.
[9] 王沂峰,何丽清. 外阴癌腹股沟淋巴结手术的研究进展[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2021, 59(9): 103-109.
[10] 杨贵霞,徐阳,马明明,宋然,朱鹏飞. 宫腹腔镜联合治疗Robert子宫合并子宫腺肌病1例[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2021, 59(1): 122-124.
[11] 庄大勇,贺青卿,李小磊,周鹏,岳涛,徐婧. 达芬奇机器人在儿童及青少年甲状腺癌中的应用[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2021, 59(1): 45-48.
[12] 霍素霞,刘薇,王鑫. 86例Ⅲ型瘢痕妊娠诊治体会[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2021, 59(1): 40-44.
[13] 郭志华,赵大庆,邢园,王薇,梁乐平,杨静,赵倩倩. Ⅰ期端端吻合术治疗重度颈段气管狭窄临床分析[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 72-76.
[14] 张新莲,吕霞,贾婷婷,孙志新,李青,张风河. 50例正颌外科手术中手套穿孔情况分析[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 58(6): 83-86.
[15] 王刚,江志伟,潘华峰. 经腹会阴联合切除术的回顾与发展[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 58(5): 6-10.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 索东阳,申飞,郭皓,刘力畅,杨惠敏,杨向东. Tim-3在药物性急性肾损伤动物模型中的表达及作用机制[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 1 -6 .
[2] 马青源,蒲沛东,韩飞,王超,朱洲均,王维山,史晨辉. miR-27b-3p调控SMAD1对骨肉瘤细胞增殖、迁移和侵袭作用的影响[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 32 -37 .
[3] 张宝文,雷香丽,李瑾娜,罗湘俊,邹容. miR-21-5p靶向调控TIMP3抑制2型糖尿病肾病小鼠肾脏系膜细胞增殖及细胞外基质堆积[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 7 -14 .
[4] 付洁琦,张曼,张晓璐,李卉,陈红. Toll样受体4抑制过氧化物酶体增殖物激活受体γ加重血脂蓄积的分子机制[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 24 -31 .
[5] 龙婷婷,谢明,周璐,朱俊德. Noggin蛋白对小鼠脑缺血再灌注损伤后学习和记忆能力与齿状回结构的影响[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 15 -23 .
[6] 李宁,李娟,谢艳,李培龙,王允山,杜鲁涛,王传新. 长链非编码RNA AL109955.1在80例结直肠癌组织中的表达及对细胞增殖与迁移侵袭的影响[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 38 -46 .
[7] 徐玉香,刘煜东,张蓬,段瑞生. 101例脑小血管病患者脑微出血危险因素的回顾性分析[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 67 -71 .
[8] 丁祥云,于清梅,张文芳,庄园,郝晶. 胰岛素样生长因子II在84例多囊卵巢综合征患者颗粒细胞中的表达和促排卵结局的相关性[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 60 -66 .
[9] 肖娟,肖强,丛伟,李婷,丁守銮,张媛,邵纯纯,吴梅,刘佳宁,贾红英. 两种甲状腺超声数据报告系统诊断效能的比较[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 53 -59 .
[10] 史爽,李娟,米琦,王允山,杜鲁涛,王传新. 胃癌miRNAs预后风险评分模型的构建与应用[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 47 -52 .
版权所有 © 2018 《山东大学学报(医学版)》编辑部　
地址:山东大学科技期刊社（济南市历城区山大南路27号山东大学中心校区明德楼B座721室） 电话: 0531-88366918 E-mail: xbyxb@sdu.edu.cn
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发