An evaluation of commercial water irrigation systems used for caloric testing

The post-1982 Grant Caloric Test Apparatus, and the Atmos Variotherm were evaluated and compared to BS5724 Part 1 (1989). Quality of construction is satisfactory, but design features may result in failure of tests for which this type of equipment should conform; namely splash, liquid leakage and spillage. For the Variotherm the proximity of the water piping to the electrical parts could result in wetting of the electrical units in the event of a leakage. The large vents in the Grant tanks allow easy access of water to electrical parts in the event of splashing. Both sets of equipment fail BS5724 Part 1 (1989) with respect to labelling. The Grant irrigation nozzle is well designed, but the Variotherm nozzles are not so, as they can accidentally pass down the external auditory meatus causing meatal wall or tympanic membrane damage. Both sets of equipment passed on electrical safety test for Class I Type B equipment. Cut-outs are fitted to prevent heating in the absence of water or over-heating of the water. The 44 degrees C Grant tank cut out after 20 s in the absence of water and at 49 degrees C as the water temperature rose above the operating temperature. The Variotherm heater did not operate in the absence of a water supply. The Variotherm thermal cut-out was not assessed. The force of the water at recommended flow rates using the Variotherm 'standard' metal nozzle was considered to pose a potential hazard of tympanic membrane perforation, and has subsequently been withdrawn by the supplier. The plastic nozzle minimized any such risk. The Variotherm is easier to use due to the well-designed trigger handle for controlling water delivery. Both sets of equipment performed at the correct temperature to within +/- 0.5 degrees C and achieved a flow rate of 250 ml in 30 s.