咽鼓管功能障碍与耳鸣:声学导抗潜在补充作用的快速综述
Eustachian Tube Dysfunction and Tinnitus: A Rapid Review of the Potential Complementary Role of Acoustic Immittance.
文献信息
| PMID | 42973397 |
|---|---|
| 原文 | 在 PubMed 查看原文 ↗ |
| 发表日期 | 2026 |
| 作者 | Adriano Rockland Siqueira Campos |
| 作者单位 | Department of Speech and Language Therapy, Escola Superior de Saúde do Alcoitão, Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa, Alcabideche, Portugal. |
| 期刊 | The journal of international advanced otology |
| SCI 分区 | Q3 |
| IF | 1.3 |
| 研究类型 | 综述 Meta · 临床 |
| 所属专科 | 耳科 |
中文摘要
目的: 批判性审视现有证据,探讨声学导抗在耳鸣并疑似咽鼓管功能障碍(ETD)患者中的补充作用,同时区分临床证据与间接及机制性支持。
方法: 按照系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告条目(PRISMA)2020进行更新和重构的快速综述。Google Scholar和Dimensions从建库至2026年8月重新检索;PubMed/MEDLINE和SciELO从2024年3月31日起更新,以补充2024年3月30日完成的原始检索。符合条件的人类原始研究需明确报告耳鸣,并评估ETD/咽鼓管异常开放(PET)和/或声学导抗。共12项研究纳入定性综合。
结果: 纳入的12项研究具有异质性。三项研究在同一临床人群中共同评估了ETD/PET、耳鸣和声学导抗测量,但均未评估声学导抗能否在诊断上识别归因于ETD的耳鸣。鼓室压测量或顺应性测量提供了中耳压力调节和PET的客观信息,而耳鸣人群中的声反射和中耳肌反射研究主要为间接或机制性。反射测试对ETD相关耳鸣的附加价值仍未得到证实。
结论: 当耳鸣与ETD或中耳功能障碍的临床怀疑并存时,声学导抗可提供补充信息。鼓室压测量是临床上最可辩护的组成部分,但结果需与症状、耳镜检查、听力测定、耳道容积、侧别和ETD亚型相关联。声反射/中耳肌测试应选择性使用,因其在该背景下的具体诊断价值仍不确定。
英文摘要
OBJECTIVE: To critically examine the available evidence regarding the complementary role of acoustic immittance in patients with tinnitus and suspected Eustachian tube dysfunction (ETD), while distinguishing clinical evidence from indirect and mechanistic support.
METHODS: A rapid review was updated and reconstructed in accordance with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020. Google Scholar and Dimensions were searched de novo from inception through August 2026; PubMed/MEDLINE and SciELO were updated from March 31, 2024, onward to complement the original searches completed on March 30, 2024. Eligible primary human studies explicitly reported tinnitus and also evaluated ETD/patulous Eustachian tube (PET) and/or acoustic immittance. Twelve studies were included in the qualitative synthesis.
RESULTS: The 12 included studies were heterogeneous. Three studies co-assessed ETD/PET, tinnitus, and an acoustic-immittance measure in the same clinical population, but none evaluated whether acoustic immittance can diagnostically identify tinnitus attributable to ETD. Tympanometric or compliance-based measures provided objective information on middle-ear pressure regulation and PET, whereas acoustic reflex and middleear muscle reflex studies in tinnitus populations were predominantly indirect or mechanistic. The added value of reflex testing for ETD-associated tinnitus remains unproven.
CONCLUSION: Acoustic immittance may provide complementary information when tinnitus coexists with clinical suspicion of ETD or middle-ear dysfunction. Tympanometry is the most clinically defensible component, but findings require correlation with symptoms, otoscopy, audiometry, ear-canal volume, laterality, and ETD subtype. Acoustic reflex/MEM testing should be used selectively because its specific diagnostic value in this context remains uncertain.