Office Insertion of Tympanostomy Tubes and the Role of Automated Insertion Devices

Objective Insertion of tubes in an office setting and automated tube insertion devices were identified as high-priority quality improvement opportunities during the update process for the 2013 clinical practice guideline on tympanostomy tubes from the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. The guideline update group, however, decided to avoid any recommendations on these topics, based on limited research evidence, and instead selected a subset of group members to author this state of the art review, with the goal of facilitating informed decisions in clinical practice. Data Sources PubMed through September 2021, Google search of device manufacturer websites, and SmartTots research website for articles on anesthesia neurotoxicity. Review Methods A state of the art review format emphasizing evidence from the past 5 years, with manual cross-checks of reference lists of identified articles for additional relevant studies. Conclusions The existing literature is too sparse to make recommendations about procedure setting and optimal technique or assess long-term outcomes. The role of automated devices is uncertain, given the increased equipment cost and limited information on characteristics of the proprietary preloaded tubes, including intubation duration and rates of otorrhea, obstruction, medialization, granulation tissue, and persistent perforation. Implications for Practice Whether to undertake in-office tube insertion in awake children should be based on clinician experience, clinician ability to interact with and reassure caregivers, shared decisions with caregivers, and judgment regarding the level of cooperation (or lack thereof) to be expected from a given child. Clinicians should remain alert to new research and expect increasing queries from patients and families.

Automated summary

Objective insertion of tubes in an office setting and automated tube insertion devices were identified as quality improvement opportunities, but limited research evidence prevented making recommendations. The existing literature lacks sufficient studies on procedure setting, optimal technique, and long-term outcomes. The role of automated devices remains uncertain and further research is needed.