• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Otology and neurotology: official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology >Tympanometry versus direct middle ear pressure measurement in an artificial model: is tympanometry an accurate method to measure middle ear pressure?
【24h】

Tympanometry versus direct middle ear pressure measurement in an artificial model: is tympanometry an accurate method to measure middle ear pressure?

机译：鼓室压法与直接中耳压测量在人工模型中：鼓室压法是测量中耳压的准确方法吗？

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

HYPOTHESIS: Indirect tympanometric pressure measurements of the middle ear (ME) do not correspond to direct pressure measurements. BACKGROUND: Tympanometry is an accepted method for estimating ME pressures. These pressure values are different, however, when measurements are made directly. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Negative pressures were induced by volume changes in an artificial ME model with various "mastoid" volumes. Both tympanometric and direct pressure measurements were obtained simultaneously. RESULTS: A substantial difference was demonstrated between tympanometric and direct pressure measurements. There was a linear correlation between tympanometry and direct pressures between -46.8 and -93.6 mmH2O, with a tympanometric overestimation of 40% to 20%, respectively. The smaller the "mastoid" volume, the greater the overestimation. The correlation was not linear for direct pressures between zero and -46.8 mmH2O. Tympanometric overestimation was greatest (i.e., 4-14-times the actual pressure) in the pressure range between zero and -12 mmH2O. CONCLUSIONS: Tympanometry does not yield precise ME pressure values. In a model with a larger "mastoid" and an actual pressure range of -46.8 to -93.6 mmH2O tympanometric readings are somewhat less unreliable (error of 40%-20%). However, tympanometry is in error of more than 400% in a model with a small mastoid in which the actual ME pressure is only slightly negative (i.e., range between -3.9 and -46.8 mmH2O). Therefore, this study implies that tympanometry has little use for measuring ME pressure especially in chronic ears or their sequelae that are usually characterized by having small negative pressures and small mastoids.
机译：假设：中耳（ME）的间接鼓室压力测量值与直接压力测量值不对应。背景：鼓室压法是估计ME压力的一种公认方法。但是，当直接进行测量时，这些压力值是不同的。材料与方法：负压是由具有各种“假性”体积的人工ME模型中的体积变化引起的。鼓室压和直接压力测量是同时获得的。结果：鼓室压力测量法和直接压力测量法之间显示出实质性差异。鼓室压力与-46.8至-93.6 mmH2O之间的直接压力之间存在线性关系，鼓室压力高估分别为40％至20％。 “假性”体积越小，高估就越大。对于零和-46.8 mmH2O之间的直接压力，相关性不是线性的。在0至-12 mmH2O的压力范围内，鼓室过高估计最大（即实际压力的4-14倍）。结论：鼓室图不能产生精确的ME压力值。在具有较大“假性”且实际压力范围为-46.8至-93.6 mmH2O的模型中，鼓室压力读数不太可靠（误差为40％-20％）。但是，在乳突小的模型中，鼓室压力法的误差超过400％，在该模型中，实际ME压力仅稍为负（即-3.9至-46.8 mmH2O之间）。因此，这项研究表明，鼓室压测量法很少用于测量ME压力，尤其是在慢性耳朵或其后遗症中，这些特点通常具有较小的负压和较小的乳突。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号