论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨实验性冲击波负压暴露时防护耳塞和防护筒对豚鼠听器的防护效果。方法防护方法分为给动物佩戴防护耳塞或者将动物全身置于防护筒内。与无防护组豚鼠进行对比,判断防护效果的观察指标有脑干听性反应(ABR)阈值变化、鼓膜和听骨链创伤情况,以及耳蜗外毛细胞缺失率的变化。将防护组动物冲击波负压暴露前后观察结果进行对比,并与未加任何防护的动物进行对比。结果在压力峰值为-64.5~-69.3kPa冲击波负压暴露后,无防护组动物ABR阈值比暴露前明显升高(P<0.001),鼓膜穿孔率达87.5%,负压暴露后14d耳蜗外毛细胞缺失率为(19.46±5.38)%;耳塞防护组和防护筒组动物ABR阈值,在负压暴露后的升高程度明显低于无防护组动物(P<0.01),所有鼓膜均未发生穿孔且听骨链保持完整,外毛细胞缺失率也明显低于无防护组动物(P<0.01),而且防护筒组动物的ABR阈值升高和外毛细胞缺失率,又明显低于耳塞防护组动物(P<0.01)。结论在实验性冲击波负压暴露时,防护耳塞和防护筒均对豚鼠听器有肯定的保护作用,并且防护筒的保护作用优于防护耳塞。
Objective To investigate the protective effect of protective earplugs and protective tubes on the guinea pig’s hearing aids during experimental shock negative pressure exposure. Methods of protection are divided into animals to wear protective earplugs or animal body placed in a protective tube. Compared with unprotected guinea pigs, the observed indexes of protective effect were threshold changes of brainstem auditory response (ABR), trauma of tympanic membrane and ossicular chain, and changes of hair loss rate of cochlear outer hair cells. The protective group of animal shock wave before and after exposure to negative observations were compared and compared with the animals without any protection. Results The ABR threshold of unprotected animals increased significantly (P <0.001) and the perforation rate of tympanic membrane reached 87.5% at the pressure peak of -64.5 ~ -69.3 kPa after exposure to shock negative pressure The cell loss rate was (19.46 ± 5.38)%. The ABR threshold of the ear protection group and the protective tube group was significantly lower than that of the unprotected group (P <0.01), and no perforation occurred in all the tympanic membranes And the integrity of the ossicular chain remained intact, and the loss of outer hair cells was also significantly lower than that of the animals without protection group (P <0.01). Moreover, the increase of ABR threshold and the loss of outer hair cells in the guarded-barrel animals were significantly lower than those of the ear protection group Animals (P <0.01). Conclusion Both protective ear protectors and protective protectors have a positive protective effect on the guinea pigs’ hearing aids when exposed to experimental shock negative pressure, and the protective tube is better than the protective ear protectors.