徐奕鹏，侯甜，赵文君，刘慧华，燕铁斌.动态电动起立床训练对健康人脑干听觉诱发电位的影响[J].中华物理医学与康复杂志,2018,40(12):928-931
扫码阅读全文
|
| 动态电动起立床训练对健康人脑干听觉诱发电位的影响 |
|
| |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 脑干 听觉 诱发电位 起立床 |
| 英文关键词: Brainstem Audition Evoked potentials Standing beds |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 3141 |
| 全文下载次数: 3353 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 观察和比较动态电动起立床训练和普通电动起立床训练对健康人脑干听觉诱发电位（BAEP）的影响。 方法 符合入选标准的健康青年受试者20例，按照随机数字法分为普通组和动态组，每组10例。普通组接受常规电动起立床训练；动态组接受动态自动调节的电动起立床训练，其训练过程通过编程自动控制的装置，使起立床在设定角度之间来回缓慢摆动。分别于训练前和训练后，对2组受试者进行BAEP测量；并采用重复测量的方差分析比较2组受试者起立床训练前后BAEP的变化。 结果 站立床训练后，普通组Ⅰ、Ⅲ和Ⅴ波波峰潜伏期分别为（1.59±0.14）、（3.83±0.13）和（5.34±0.24）ms，动态组Ⅰ波和Ⅲ波波峰潜伏期分别为（1.59±0.08）和（3.78±0.31）ms，且与组内训练前比较，差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）；动态组训练后的Ⅴ波波峰潜伏期［（5.13±0.17）ms］较组内训练前［(5.44±0.19)ms］明显缩短（P<0.05）,且明显短于普通组训练后（P<0.05）。训练后，普通组Ⅰ～Ⅲ、Ⅰ～Ⅴ、Ⅲ～Ⅴ波各峰间潜伏期［（2.18±0.17）、（3.81±0.40）、（1.51±0.34）ms］及动态组Ⅰ～Ⅲ波峰间潜伏期［（2.19±0.09）ms］分别与组内训练前比较，差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）；动态组训练后的Ⅰ～Ⅴ、Ⅲ～Ⅴ波峰间潜伏期分别是（3.54±0.20）和（1.35±0.24）ms，较组内训练前［（3.78±0.24）和（1.64±0.23）ms］明显缩短（P<0.05），但动态组训练后的Ⅰ～Ⅲ、Ⅰ～Ⅴ、Ⅲ～Ⅴ各峰间潜伏期与普通组训练后各峰间潜伏期比较，差异并无统计学意义（P>0.05）。 结论 健康人经动态起立床训练后的BAEP波峰潜伏期及各波峰间潜伏期均较普通电动起立床训练后有一定改善。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To observe and compare the effect of training using an electric standing bed or a dynamic electric standing bed on the auditory evoked potentials (BAEPs) in the brainstems of healthy people. Methods Twenty healthy people were divided into a common group (n=10) and a dynamic group (n=10). The common group accepted training using an electric standing bed, while the dynamic group accepted training using a dynamic electric standing bed. Before and after the training, BAEPs were measured and compared using variance analysis. Results The latencies of the I, III and V waves among the common group were not significantly different from those of the dynamic group before the training. After the training, however, the average wave V latency was significantly shorter than that in the common group. After the training there were, however, no significant differences in the I-III, I-V or III-V interpeak latencies in the common group, nor in the I-III interpeak latency in the dynamic group compared with before the training. In the dynamic group the average I-V and III-V interpeak latencies after the training were significantly shorter than those beforehand. However, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the I-III, I-V or II-V interpeak latency after the training. Conclusion Compared with training using an electric standing bed, a dynamic electric standing bed gives significantly greater improvement in the latency and interpeak latency of BAEP waves. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
