摘要
目的 比较圆窗法和面神经管法记录耳蜗微音器电位。方法 圆窗法在乳突钻孔,将记录电极向骨孔深部插入;面神经管法将记录电极经茎乳孔插入面神经管内。结果 与圆窗法相比,面神经管法成功率高,手术时间短,而波形和波幅无明显差异。结论 面神经管法记录微音器电位的成功率高,简便易学,手术时间短,记录效果满意。
Objective To compare the method of canalis facialis with the method of fenestra cochleae in recording of microphonic potential in guinea pig. Methods In canalis facialis method, a hole was bored on the surface of mastoid process and an electrical pole was inserted into the hole. In method of fenestra cochleae, an electrical pole was inserted into the fenestra cochleae through the foramen stylomastoideum. Results The method showed a higher successful rate and a shorter time of operation. No significant differences in microphonic potential were found between method of canalis facialis and method of fenestra cochleae. Conclusion In method of canalis facialis, the successful rate was higher, the operation time shorter, and the effect satisfactory. The method was easier to learn.
出处
《安徽医科大学学报》
CAS
1999年第5期329-330,共2页
Acta Universitatis Medicinalis Anhui
关键词
耳蜗
微音器电位
听觉
面神经管法
豚鼠
cochlear microphonic potentials
auditory perception
round window
facial nerve
electrophysiology
comparative study
guinea pigs