Abstract:

 Objective To compare the two sensory function evaluation Methods as the hot plate pain test and up-down mechanical pain test about their stability and accuracy. Methods Ten Male C57BL/6J mice weighed 20 to 25 g were included, and the thermo-hot plate pain detector was used to measure the response latency in hot pain, the Von Frey Hair Test fiber was used to measure the 50% mechanical drop threshold. The stability and accuracy of the two sensory function assessment Methods were compared. Results The three times of response latency to heat pain were 26.24 ± 7.36 s, 22.28 ± 7.78 s, 20.80±6.85 s and there was no significant difference between these three groups（P>0.05）. The three times mechanical withdrawal thresholds of left foot were ：2.69±1.22 g, 2.71±1.19 g, 2.58±1.15 g and there was no significant difference between these three groups（P>0.05）. The three times mechanical withdrawal thresholds of right foot were 2.97±1.07 g, 2.99±1.03 g, 2.99±1.04 g and there was no signifi-cant difference between these three groups（P>0.05）. Conclusion There was no significant difference between the three times hot pains measure, and no significant difference in both three times of the left and right foot mechanical pain.

Key words: sensory function, hot pain, mechanical pain

摘要：

目的 比较热板测痛试验与up?down测试机械痛这两种感觉功能评价方法的稳定性、准确性。方法 用10只体重20~25g的雄性C57BL/6J小鼠，分别用智能热板测痛仪、VonFreyHairTest纤维丝测痛仪进行热痛的反应潜伏期、50%机械性撤足阈值的测试，比较这两种感觉功能评估方法的稳定性、准确性。结果 3次测量的热痛的反应潜伏期分别为26.24±7.36s、22.28±7.78s、20.80±6.85s，差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）；左足3次测量的机械性撤足阈值分别为：2.69±1.22g、2.71±1.19g、2.58±1.15g，差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）；右足3次测量的机械性撤足阈值分别为：2.97±1.07g、2.99±1.03g、2.99±1.04g，差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论 3次测量的热痛之间无明显差异，3次测量的左右足机械痛之间无明显差异。

关键词: 热痛, 机械痛 , 感觉功能