Mohammad Hossein Davari, Mohammad Taghi Jalalian, Seyyed Jalil Mirmohammadi, Ahmad Shojaoddiny-Ardekani, Mojgan Piri Ardakani, Amir Houshang Mehrparvar
{"title":"噪声引起的听力损失：连续噪声与冲击/脉冲噪声。","authors":"Mohammad Hossein Davari, Mohammad Taghi Jalalian, Seyyed Jalil Mirmohammadi, Ahmad Shojaoddiny-Ardekani, Mojgan Piri Ardakani, Amir Houshang Mehrparvar","doi":"10.4103/ijpvm.ijpvm_368_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Impact/impulse and continuous noise are two main causes of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) in workplaces. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of impulse/impact noise and continuous noise on hearing status.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this study, 259 workers referred to the occupational medicine clinic of Shahid Rahnemoun hospital, Yazd, Iran, entered the study and were divided into two groups: with exposure to impact/impulse noise and with exposure to continuous noise. Hearing thresholds were measured and compared between the two groups by pure-tone audiometry (PTA). The frequency of hearing loss and audiometric notch according to the results of PTA was compared between the two groups. Data were analyzed by SPSS (ver. 16) using Student's <i>t</i>-test, Chi-square test, and Mann-Whitney U test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Hearing thresholds were significantly higher at all frequencies in the impact noise group. The hearing threshold at 6000 Hz was higher than other frequencies in both groups. The frequency of hearing loss at high frequencies was higher in the impact group. The frequency of audiometric notch was not significantly different between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results of this study showed that hearing loss after exposure to impact/impulse noise is probably more frequent and more severe than exposure to continuous noise, but the pattern of hearing loss is similar in both types of noise exposure.</p>","PeriodicalId":14342,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Preventive Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10935570/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Noise-induced Hearing Loss: Continuous versus Impact/impulse Noise.\",\"authors\":\"Mohammad Hossein Davari, Mohammad Taghi Jalalian, Seyyed Jalil Mirmohammadi, Ahmad Shojaoddiny-Ardekani, Mojgan Piri Ardakani, Amir Houshang Mehrparvar\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ijpvm.ijpvm_368_21\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Impact/impulse and continuous noise are two main causes of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) in workplaces. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of impulse/impact noise and continuous noise on hearing status.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this study, 259 workers referred to the occupational medicine clinic of Shahid Rahnemoun hospital, Yazd, Iran, entered the study and were divided into two groups: with exposure to impact/impulse noise and with exposure to continuous noise. Hearing thresholds were measured and compared between the two groups by pure-tone audiometry (PTA). The frequency of hearing loss and audiometric notch according to the results of PTA was compared between the two groups. Data were analyzed by SPSS (ver. 16) using Student's <i>t</i>-test, Chi-square test, and Mann-Whitney U test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Hearing thresholds were significantly higher at all frequencies in the impact noise group. The hearing threshold at 6000 Hz was higher than other frequencies in both groups. The frequency of hearing loss at high frequencies was higher in the impact group. The frequency of audiometric notch was not significantly different between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results of this study showed that hearing loss after exposure to impact/impulse noise is probably more frequent and more severe than exposure to continuous noise, but the pattern of hearing loss is similar in both types of noise exposure.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14342,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Preventive Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10935570/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Preventive Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijpvm.ijpvm_368_21\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Preventive Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijpvm.ijpvm_368_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景：冲击/脉冲噪声和持续噪声是工作场所噪声性听力损失（NIHL）的两个主要原因。本研究旨在比较脉冲/冲击噪声和持续噪声对听力状况的影响：在这项研究中，伊朗亚兹德 Shahid Rahnemoun 医院职业医学诊所转诊的 259 名工人参加了研究，并被分为两组：暴露于冲击/脉冲噪声和暴露于持续噪声。通过纯音测听（PTA）测量并比较两组的听阈。根据纯音测听结果，比较两组听力损失的频率和听力缺口。数据用 SPSS（16 版）进行分析，采用学生 t 检验、卡方检验和 Mann-Whitney U 检验：结果：冲击噪声组的听阈在所有频率上都明显较高。两组在 6000 赫兹的听阈均高于其他频率。撞击组的高频听力损失频率更高。两组听力缺口的频率没有明显差异：这项研究的结果表明，暴露于冲击/脉冲噪声后听力损失的频率和程度可能比暴露于连续噪声后更严重，但两种噪声暴露的听力损失模式相似。
Noise-induced Hearing Loss: Continuous versus Impact/impulse Noise.
Background: Impact/impulse and continuous noise are two main causes of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) in workplaces. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of impulse/impact noise and continuous noise on hearing status.
Methods: In this study, 259 workers referred to the occupational medicine clinic of Shahid Rahnemoun hospital, Yazd, Iran, entered the study and were divided into two groups: with exposure to impact/impulse noise and with exposure to continuous noise. Hearing thresholds were measured and compared between the two groups by pure-tone audiometry (PTA). The frequency of hearing loss and audiometric notch according to the results of PTA was compared between the two groups. Data were analyzed by SPSS (ver. 16) using Student's t-test, Chi-square test, and Mann-Whitney U test.
Results: Hearing thresholds were significantly higher at all frequencies in the impact noise group. The hearing threshold at 6000 Hz was higher than other frequencies in both groups. The frequency of hearing loss at high frequencies was higher in the impact group. The frequency of audiometric notch was not significantly different between the two groups.
Conclusions: The results of this study showed that hearing loss after exposure to impact/impulse noise is probably more frequent and more severe than exposure to continuous noise, but the pattern of hearing loss is similar in both types of noise exposure.
期刊介绍：
International Journal of Preventive Medicine, a publication of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, is a peer-reviewed online journal with Continuous print on demand compilation of issues published. The journal’s full text is available online at http://www.ijpvmjournal.net. The journal allows free access (Open Access) to its contents and permits authors to self-archive final accepted version of the articles on any OAI-compliant institutional / subject-based repository. The journal will cover technical and clinical studies related to health, ethical and social issues in field of Preventive Medicine. Articles with clinical interest and implications will be given preference.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
