These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Retrospective investigation on explosive hearing loss of injured persons in explosion accidents involving a steel enterprise].
    Author: Chen GS, Zhang HL, Liu RZ, Gu GZ, Yu SF.
    Journal: Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi; 2020 Feb 20; 38(2):132-136. PubMed ID: 32306678.
    Abstract:
    Objective: Through the investigation of the injured persons in explosion accidents, the impact of wearing the ear protectors device (anti-noise earplugs) on the auditory organs and hearing loss of the injured person was understood, which could provide reference for the clinical diagnosis, treatment and prevention of the explosive hearing impairment. Methods: A retrospective survey was conducted on 39 directly injured persons who were injured in 23 explosion accidents involving a steel plant from 1990 to 2016 as the explosive hearing loss, taking the time of the patient＇s injury and 3-6 months after the injury as the time of investigation and evidence collection, and according to whether to wear the ear protectors device for group comparison and statistical analysis. Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups in hearing loss, tinnitus, earache, headache, some patients with dizziness and craniocerebral injury, regardless of whether the injured person wore anti-noise earplugs or not (P=0.444-1) , the shock (coma) patients in the non-protected group were more common (34.8%, 8/23) , and the difference was statistically significant (P=0.012) ; Although auricle injury was detected in both groups and there was no significant difference between the two groups (P=1) , but the external ear canal injury, tympanic membrane perforation were more common in the non-protected group, and there was no external ear canal and tympanic membrane perforation in the wearing earplug group, and the difference between the two groups was significant (P=0.000) . After 3-6 months, the rehabilitation of auditory system and other symptoms in patients showed that the hearing loss, tinnitus, earache, headache, dizziness and other symptoms all disappeared in patients wearing earplugs, while the above symptoms in the non-protected group were improved but more persisted, and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P=0.000-0.012) , and there was no significant difference in rehabilitation conditions such as craniocerebral injury between the two groups (P=1) ; There were patients with unhealed auricle injury in both groups in 3-6 months after the injury, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (P=1) , however, in the non-protected group, 69.57% (16/23) of the patients with external auditory canal injury were still unhealed and none of the patients with tympanic membrane perforation recovered, and the difference between the two groups was obvious (P=0.000~0.001) ; Pure tone air conduction examination showed that the hearing of the earplugs wearers was well recovered at the time of the explosion, while irreversible hearing impairment was common in the non-protective group, the difference was statistically significant (P=0.000) . Conclusion: Ear protector plays an important role in protecting the auditory organs and hearing of workers in explosion accident, and it is an effective protective measure to prevent and reduce the damage of external ear canal, perforation of tympanic membrane and explosive hearing loss caused by explosion accidents. 目的： 通过对爆炸事故受伤人员调查，了解受伤人员佩戴护耳器（防噪耳塞）对听觉器官和听力损失的影响，为爆震性听力损伤的临床诊断、治疗和预防提供参考依据。 方法： 于2019年8月采用回顾性方法以某钢铁厂1990~2016年发生的23起爆炸事故39名爆震听力损失人员作为研究对象，以患者受伤就诊时、伤后3~6个月为调查取证时间，按照是否佩戴护耳器分为防护组和无防护组，对其就诊时听觉系统症状及伤后3~6月听觉系统恢复情况进行统计学分析。 结果： 与防护组比较，无防护组就诊时处于休克（昏迷）患者更多见（34.8%，8/23），差异有统计学意义（P=0.012）；无防护组外耳道损伤、鼓膜穿孔多见，差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。3~6个月后患者听觉系统及其他症状康复情况显示，防护组听力减退、耳鸣、耳痛、头痛、眩晕等症状全部消失，无防护组症状虽有好转但多持续存在，差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）；两组间颅脑损伤等康复情况差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）；两组均有耳廓损伤未愈患者，差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）；与防护组比较，无防护组外耳道损伤有69.57%（16/23），差异有统计学意义（P<0.01）。纯音气导听阈检查显示，防护组听力得到良好恢复，而无防护组发生不可逆听力损伤多见，差异有统计学意义（P<0.01）。 结论： 护耳器在爆炸事故中对劳动者的听觉器官特别是外耳道和鼓膜有明显保护作用，是预防和减轻爆炸事故导致外耳道损伤、鼓膜穿孔及爆震性听力损失的有效保护措施。.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]