郭美琼, 郭翔, 林辉, 何坚. 职业性噪声聋诊断实践体会与建议[J]. 职业卫生与应急救援, 2016, 34(3): 209-211,226. DOI: 10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2016.03.010
引用本文: 郭美琼, 郭翔, 林辉, 何坚. 职业性噪声聋诊断实践体会与建议[J]. 职业卫生与应急救援, 2016, 34(3): 209-211,226. DOI: 10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2016.03.010
GUO Meiqiong, GUO Xiang, LIN Hui, HE Jian. Discussion on diagnosis of occupational noise-induced deafness[J]. Occupational Health and Emergency Rescue, 2016, 34(3): 209-211,226. DOI: 10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2016.03.010
Citation: GUO Meiqiong, GUO Xiang, LIN Hui, HE Jian. Discussion on diagnosis of occupational noise-induced deafness[J]. Occupational Health and Emergency Rescue, 2016, 34(3): 209-211,226. DOI: 10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2016.03.010

职业性噪声聋诊断实践体会与建议

Discussion on diagnosis of occupational noise-induced deafness

  • 摘要: 目的 探讨职业性噪声聋诊断存在问题。 方法 回顾性分析2015年在深圳市职业病防治院申请职业性噪声聋诊断的164例病例资料。 结果 确诊为职业性噪声聋的有60例,确诊率为36.6%。104例未确诊职业性噪声聋的主要原因是:较好耳听阈加权值<26 dB (37/104),噪声作业工龄<3年(29/104),主客观听力检查结果不相符(27/104),双耳高频平均听阈<40 dB (7/104),噪声作业强度<85 dB (A)(4/104)。164例病例中,有149例(90.9%)分别经市、区、街道三级职业健康体检机构报告为"疑似职业性噪声聋",最终经医学观察有55例确诊为职业性噪声聋,职业性噪声聋诊断符合率为36.9%,不同级别职业健康体检机构职业性噪声聋诊断符合率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。 结论 客观听力检查是鉴别夸大聋和伪聋的有效手段;应重视劳动者噪声聋诊断相关知识宣传教育,减少职业健康检查和职业病诊断夸大聋病例出现。

     

    Abstract: Objective To understand the difficulty during the diagnosis of occupational noise-induced deafness. Methods The data of 164 cases who applied for diagnosis of occupational disease in 2015 was analyzed. Results All the cases were suspected as victims by regular occupational health examinations and among them 149 cases were already diagnosed as the suspected patients with occupational noise-induced deafness (90.9%) by other occupational health service agencies. After these patients received a series of examination during hospitalization period, 60 cases were finally diagnosed as the occupational noise-induced deafness (36.6%),including 55 cases from 149 suspected patients. One hundred and four undiagnosed cases were found that the weighted value of hearing threshold of either ear was under 26 dB(37/104); or the time of occupational exposure to noise was less than 3 years(29/104); or there was inconsistency between the subjective and objective hearing tests(27/104); or the binaural high-frequency hearing threshold was under 40 dB (7/104) and the noise intensity at workplaces was under 85 dB(A)(4/104). The retrospective analysis showed that there was no difference of diagnosis accuracy among different health service agencies(P>0.05). Conclusion The objective hearing tests are effective means of identification of the exaggerated deaf and pseudo deaf. Proper training should be provided for the workers to reduce exaggerated deafness cases during occupational health examination.

     

/

返回文章
返回