The psychological intervention and clinical efficacy of Rosenthal effect and acupuncture bleeding on middle-aged and young patients with sudden hearing loss.

Combining traditional Chinese medicine theory and modern medical knowledge, this study explores the pathogenesis of sudden hearing loss in middle-aged and young people. Sixty-four young and middle-aged patients with sudden hearing loss who visited a public tertiary hospital in China are chosen as experimental objects. All experimental patients are broken into an experimental group (n = 32) and a control group (n = 32). The control group receive conventional Western medicine treatment regimen. The experimental group receive select acupoint acupuncture and bloodletting combined with Rosenthal effect for psychological intervention, and both groups have a treatment course of 14 days. The changes in the patient's condition before and after treatment are observed, and the differences in hearing threshold values, tinnitus, and dizziness clinical efficacy before and after treatment are observed and recorded. It evaluates the efficacy using the Anxiety, Depression Scale, and Hope Scale and statistically analyzes the data. The dizziness score of the experimental group decreased rapidly, the treatment onset time was shorter, and the improvement effect on dizziness symptoms was better (P < .05). After 1 month of intervention treatment, the intervention of the experimental group was better (P < .05). The hope level and self-efficacy of both groups of patients were raised in contrast with before treatment (P < .05). After 1 month, the intervention effect of the experimental group was more significant (P < .01). Both groups could improve patient ear blood circulation, but the experimental group had lower plasma viscosity, hematocrit, and red blood cell aggregation index, higher red blood cell deformation index, and more significant improvement effect (P < .05). The effective rates of improving hearing and tinnitus in the experimental group reached 87.5% and 81.5%, and the clinical treatment efficacy was better than that in the control group (P < .05). The level of depression and anxiety in the experimental group remained relatively stable, while that in the control group showed a significant rebound (P < .05). In conclusion, both groups had a certain effect in treating sudden deafness, both of which could effectively improve the patient's hearing. But in contrast with the control group, the experimental group had better clinical efficacy, higher safety, and better psychological intervention results, which is worthy of clinical promotion.