Home > Journals > Otorinolaringologia > Past Issues > Otorinolaringologia 1998 June;48(2) > Otorinolaringologia 1998 June;48(2):63-6

CURRENT ISSUE
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints

OTORINOLARINGOLOGIA

A Journal on Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery,
Plastic Reconstructive Surgery, Otoneurosurgery


Indexed/Abstracted in: EMBASE, Scopus


eTOC

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLES  


Otorinolaringologia 1998 June;48(2):63-6

Copyright © 2000 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Elec­tro­coch­le­og­ra­phy in ­CSOM: ­click stim­u­lus vs ­tone ­bursts

Chau­han Jai­man­ti K., Mann S. B. S., Pan­da N. K., Gup­ta A. K., Raghu­na­than M.

From the Depart­ment of Otol­a­ryn­gol­o­gy Post­grad­u­ate Insti­tute of Med­i­cal Edu­ca­tion & ­Research Chan­di­garh, ­India


PDF  


Elec­tro­coch­le­og­ra­phy was con­duct­ed on 30 ­patients ­with dry cen­tral per­fo­ra­tions of the tym­pan­ic mem­brane. Coch­le­ar micro­phon­ics (CM), sum­mat­ing poten­tial (SP) and ­action poten­tial (AP) ­were ­found to be 0.8 uV, 0.3 uV and 7.48 uV respec­tive­ly in cas­es of ­CSOM ­with mod­er­ate ­degree of con­duc­tive hear­ing ­loss. The SP/AP ­ratio was ­found to be 0.11. An ­increase in the laten­cy and ­decrease in ampli­tude of electri­cal poten­tials was ­also ­found. ­Click as stim­u­lus was ­found to be bet­ter ­than ­tone ­bursts in a sig­nif­i­cant num­ber of cas­es (p<0.01).

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail