摘要目的:探讨不同年龄段勃起功能障碍(ED)患者心理状况的差异。方法:回顾性分析郑州大学第三附属医院2018年7月至2019年7月收治的401例ED患者的临床资料。年龄20～60岁。将所有患者按年龄段分为4组：A组158例，年龄20～29岁；B组182例，年龄30～39岁；C组38例，年龄40～49岁；D组23例，年龄50～60岁。基于国际勃起功能评分表(IIEF-5)评估患者的勃起功能情况。采用症状自评量表(SCL-90)评估患者的敌对、焦虑、精神病性、恐怖、偏执、强迫、躯体化、人际关系、抑郁等9项心理状况。采用状态-特质焦虑量表(STAI)区分患者是否存在状态性或特质性的焦虑情绪。采用艾森克人格问卷(EPQ)分析患者的人格类型。分析患者组与文献报道的全国常模组SCL-90、STAI和EPQ量表的差异。分析不同年龄组患者各项指标的差异。结果:患者组SCL-90量表的敌对(1.64±0.67， t＝4.81， P<0.001)、焦虑(1.58±0.66， t＝6.83， P<0.001)、精神病性(1.62±0.68， t＝11.87， P<0.001)、偏执(1.55±0.66， t＝3.58， P<0.001)、强迫(1.95±0.70， t＝9.56， P<0.001)、躯体化(1.43±0.58， t＝2.10， P＝0.036)、人际关系/敏感(1.74±0.74， t＝2.79， P＝0.005)、抑郁(1.66±0.74， t＝4.50， P<0.001)等因子分，以及总分(1.53±0.63， t＝3.07， P＝0.002)均显著高于全国常模组。A、B、C、D组的人际关系/敏感得分差异有统计学意义(1.72±0.78、1.65±0.69、1.58±0.92、1.43±0.59， F＝2.84， P＝0.038)。患者组STAI量表的状态焦虑( t＝7.35， P<0.001)、特质焦虑( t＝6.31， P<0.001)等因子分和总分( t＝8.41， P<0.001)均显著高于全国常模组，不同年龄组的状态焦虑( F＝5.29， P＝0.001)、特质焦虑( F＝5.54， P<0.001)因子分和总分( F＝5.66， P<0.001)差异有统计学意义。患者组的精神质( t＝30.56， P<0.001)、情绪( t＝45.94， P<0.001)、外倾-内倾( t＝11.72， P<0.001)、掩饰性( t＝29.16， P<0.001)等因子分和总分( t＝30.56， P<0.001)均显著高于全国常模组。401例的人格类型分别为抑郁质183例(45.64%)，胆汁质94例(23.44%)，黏液质66例(16.46%)，多血质58例(14.46%)。不同年龄组的抑郁质、胆汁质、黏液质、多血质人格类型分布分别为A组76、35、26、21例，B组87、40、32、23例，C组14、10、6、8例，D组6、9、2、6例，组间比较差异无统计学意义(χ 2＝10.65， P＝0.30)。 结论:ED患者存在一系列异常的情绪、躯体化的不适感，敏感的人际关系以及内向、情绪不稳定的人格特征；年龄越小的患者其焦虑情绪越严重，人际关系越敏感，可能与其内向的个性特征及情绪的不稳定性相关。

abstractsObjective:To investigate the differences of psychological condition of erectile dysfunction (ED) patients in different age groups.Methods:The emotion, personality and interpersonal relationship outpatients with ED were evaluated by the method of Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90), State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ). A retrospective analysis was conducted and a total of 401 ED patients (aged 20-60) were divided into 4 groups [20-29(n=158), 30-39(n=182), 40-49(n=38), 50-60 (n=23)years old] from July 2018 to July 2019. The erectile function of the patients was evaluated by the international erectile function scale (IIEF-5). The symptoms of hostility, anxiety, psychotic, horrible, paranoid, obsession, somatization, interpersonal relationship and depression were evaluated by SCL-90. Furthermore, STAI was used to distinguish whether the patients had state or trait anxiety. Then EPQ was used to analyze the personality types of patients. The differences of SCL-90, STAI and EPQ between the patients and the national norm group were analyzed by the two sample t-test. The variance analysis was conducted to compare the score differences of scales among different age groups of ED patients. The chi square test was conducted to compare the distribution differences of personality types among different age groups. Results:The scores of hostility(1.64±0.67, t=4.81, P<0.001), anxiety(1.58±0.66, t=6.83, P<0.001), psychotic(1.62±0.68, t=11.87, P<0.001), paranoid(1.55±0.66, t=3.58, P=0.0004), obsession(1.95±0.70, t=9.56, P<0.001), somatization(1.43±0.58, t=2.10, P=0.036), interpersonal relationship(1.74±0.74, t=2.79, P=0.005), depression (1.66±0.74, t=4.50, P<0.001)and the total scores (1.53±0.63, t=3.07, P=0.002)of SCL-90 in the patient group were significantly higher than those of the national norm group, and there were significant differences in the scores of interpersonal relationship among different age groups(1.72±0.78, 1.65±0.69, 1.58±0.92, 1.43±0.59, F=2.84, P=0.038). The scores of state anxiety( t=7.35, P<0.001), trait anxiety ( t=6.31, P<0.001)and the total scores ( t=8.41, P<0.001)of STAI in the patient group were significantly higher than those of the national norm, and there were significant differences in the scores of state anxiety( F=5.29, P=0.001), trait anxiety ( F=5.54, P<0.001)and total scores ( F=5.66, P<0.001)among different age groups. There were significant increases in the scores of psychoticism( t=30.56, P<0.001), emotion( t=45.94, P<0.001), extraversion and introversion( t=11.72, P<0.001), concealment factors ( t=29.16, P<0.001)and total scores ( t=30.56, P<0.001)in the patient group. The proportion of depressive personality was highest in the ED patients(n=183; 45.64%), but there was no significant difference in the distribution of personality types among different age groups[20-29(depressive, choleric, mucinous and sanguine): 76, 35, 26, 21; 30-39: 87, 40, 32, 23; 40-49: 14, 10, 6, 8; 50-60: 6, 9, 2, 6; χ 2=10.65, P=0.30]. Conclusions:ED patients have a series of abnormal emotions, somatized discomfort, sensitive interpersonal relationships, introverted and unstable emotionally personality characteristics. In addition, the younger the patients are, the more serious their anxiety are, the more sensitive their interpersonal relationships are, which may be related to their introverted personality characteristics and emotional instability.