首次报道圆窗膜破裂和外淋巴漏虽已约10年,但对此种情况仍了解不够。正如耳科学的某些课题一样,其症结乃在于很难摆脱臆断的桎梏,因而,作出的诊断很可能是错误的。查其可能被忽视的原因在千此种情况未列入鉴别诊断中讨论,还可因未作耳部探查,或则缘于上列两种原因查明前瘘管已自行愈合。此外,又可能得出假阳性诊断,其理由为:(1)对圆窗龛及其粘膜皱襞的解剖不熟悉,误将其当作圆窗膜;(2)探查术时,由于探针、钻头使用不当可能造成漏管,从而符合了术者主观臆想;(3)可能将下鼓室的浆液性渗出液误为外淋巴。 Stewart和Belal的文章(见上9号文)有助于纠正过去发表的有明显错误的描述。该氏等指 For the first time reported round window membrane rupture and perilymph leak although about 10 years, but still not enough understanding of this situation. Like some of the topics of otology, the crux of the problem is that it is difficult to get rid of the sham, and the diagnosis made is likely to be wrong. Check for possible reasons for neglect in this case were not included in the differential diagnosis discussed, but also because of no ear exploration, or due to the above two reasons to identify the pre-fistula has healed. In addition, the false positive diagnosis may be obtained again for the following reasons: (1) The anatomy of the round window niche and its mucosal folds are not familiar and mistakenly regarded as the round window membrane; (2) When the probe is performed, Drill improper use may result in leakage of pipe, which meets the subjective assumptions of the surgeon; (3) may be under the tympanum serous effusion mistaken for perilymph. The articles by Stewart and Belal (see article 9) help to correct the apparently erroneous statements made in the past. The so-called means