[A randomized controlled trial of electronic balance assistant combined with pharmacotherapy for vestibular rehabilitation in patients with acute peripheral vestibular injury]
- PMID: 41167752
- DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115330-20250419-00239
[A randomized controlled trial of electronic balance assistant combined with pharmacotherapy for vestibular rehabilitation in patients with acute peripheral vestibular injury]
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effect of an electronic balance aid in balance rehabilitation training for patients with acute peripheral vestibular injury by comparing the outcomes of medication-only treatment and medication combined with vestibular rehabilitation using an electronic balance aid. Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial. The study subjects included 98 patients (40 males and 58 females, aged 25-69 years) diagnosed with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) with vertigo or vestibular neuritis, who were treated in the Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery of Tianjin First Central Hospital from November 2022 to November 2023. All patients were randomly divided into the experimental group and the control group at a 1∶1 ratio using the sealed envelope method. Control group (conventional drug treatment): Patients received medication treatment for 2 weeks, including betahistine mesilate tablets, vitamin B1 tablets, methylcobalamin tablets, ginkgo biloba tablets, diphenhydramine hydrochloride injection (within 3 days of onset), metoclopramide hydrochloride injection, and glucocorticoids. Experimental group (conventional drug treatment+device training): On the basis of the same medication treatment as the control group, patients received vestibular rehabilitation training using an electronic balance aid (20 minutes per session, once a day,≥5 days per week, for a total of 2 weeks). SPSS software was used to compare the total scores of the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI), the total scores of the Sensory Organization Test (SOT), and sensory analysis indicators between the two groups before and after treatment. Results: After treatment, vertigo symptoms significantly improved in both groups. DHI: The total DHI score in the control group decreased from 77.9±1.8 before treatment to 20.2±2.3 after treatment (P<0.001). In the experimental group, the total DHI score decreased from 73.5±2.1 before treatment to 8.6±0.9 after treatment (P<0.001). The difference in total DHI scores between the two groups after treatment was statistically significant, with the experimental group showing a lower score (t=-4.616, P<0.001). The improvement in DHI scores was also more pronounced in the experimental group compared to the control group (t=2.004, P=0.048). SOT: The total SOT score in the control group increased from 52.90±0.95 before treatment to 73.3±1.1 after treatment (P<0.001). In the experimental group, the total SOT score increased from 54.9±0.8 before treatment to 83.5±0.9 after treatment (P<0.001). The difference in total SOT scores between the two groups after treatment was statistically significant, with the experimental group showing a higher score (t=7.104, P<0.001). The improvement in SOT scores was also more pronounced in the experimental group compared to the control group (t=6.532, P<0.001). Sensory Analysis Indicators Proprioception (SOM): In the experimental group, the proprioception score significantly increased after treatment compared with before treatment (t=-2.338, P=0.029), while, there was no statistically significant difference in the proprioception score of the control group before and after treatment (P=0.537). Before treatment, there were no statistically significant differences in visual, vestibular, or visual dependence scores between the two groups (all P>0.05). After treatment, the visual, vestibular, and visual dependence scores of both groups significantly increased compared with those before treatment (all P<0.05); moreover, the post-treatment visual, vestibular, and visual dependence scores of the experimental group were significantly higher than those of the control group (all P<0.05). Conclusion: Compared with medication-only treatment, the combination of an electronic balance aid and medication for the treatment and rehabilitation training of patients with acute peripheral vestibular injury can significantly improve the therapeutic effect in the short term.
目的: 通过单纯药物治疗与药物治疗联合电子平衡辅助器进行前庭康复的对比研究,评价电子平衡辅助器用于急性前庭周围性损伤患者平衡康复训练的效果。 方法: 本研究为随机对照试验,研究对象为2022年11月至2023年11月在天津市第一中心医院耳鼻咽喉头颈外科诊治的特发性突发性聋伴眩晕和前庭神经炎患者共98例,其中男40例、女58例,年龄25~69岁。将全部患者按1∶1的比例以随机信封分组的方式分至试验组和对照组,每组各49例。对照组(常规药物治疗组):给予甲磺酸倍他司汀片、维生素B1片、甲钴胺片、银杏叶片、盐酸苯海拉明注射液(发病3 d内)、盐酸甲氧氯普胺注射液、糖皮质激素等药物治疗2周。试验组(常规药物治疗+器械训练组):在药物治疗的基础上,应用电子平衡辅助器对患者进行前庭康复训练(20 min/次,1次/d,≥5 d/周,共计训练2周)。应用SPSS 17.0软件比较两组患者治疗前、后的眩晕障碍量表(dizziness handicap inventory,DHI)总分以及感觉统合测试(sensory organization test,SOT)总评分值和感官分析指标。 结果: 两组患者经过治疗,眩晕症状均有明显的好转。对照组治疗前DHI总分(77.9±1.8)分、治疗后(20.2±2.3)分,试验组治疗前DHI总分(73.5±2.1)分、治疗后(8.6±0.9)分,两组治疗后均较治疗前总分减低,差异有统计学意义(P值均<0.001);试验组治疗后DHI总分低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(t=-4.616,P<0.001);两组治疗前后DHI总分差值比较,试验组[(-64.9±17.5)分]改善较对照组[(-57.6±18.2)分]更明显,差异有统计学意义(t=2.004,P=0.048)。对照组治疗前SOT总评分值(52.9±0.9)分、治疗后(73.3±1.1)分,试验组治疗前SOT总评分值(54.9±0.8)分、治疗后(83.5±0.9)分,两组SOT总评分值治疗后均较治疗前明显提高,差异有统计学意义(P值均<0.05);试验组治疗后SOT总评分值较对照组高,差异有统计学意义(t=7.104,P<0.001);两组治疗前后SOT总评分值差值比较,试验组治疗前后SOT总评分值差值[(28.6±6.5)分]较对照组差值[(20.4±5.9)分]更大,差异有统计学意义(t=-6.532,P<0.001)。感官分析指标:试验组治疗后本体感觉分值较治疗前显著提高(t=-2.338,P=0.029),而对照组治疗前、后本体感觉分值差异无统计学意义(P=0.537);试验组和对照组治疗前的视觉、前庭觉、视觉依赖分值差异均无统计学意义(P值均>0.05),两组治疗后的视觉、前庭觉和视觉依赖分值均较治疗前显著提高,差异有统计学意义(P值均<0.05);治疗后试验组的视觉、前庭觉和视觉依赖分值均比对照组高,差异有统计学意义(P值均<0.05)。 结论: 与单纯药物治疗相比,电子平衡辅助器联合药物用于急性前庭周围性损伤患者的治疗及康复训练,短期内可明显提升治疗效果。.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
