4.5 Article

Effect of Water Precautions on Otorrhea Incidence after Pediatric Tympanostomy Tube: Randomized Controlled Trial Evidence

期刊

OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY
卷 161, 期 3, 页码 514-521

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1177/0194599819844487

关键词

middle ear ventilation; otitis media with effusion; postoperative care; swimming; water precautions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives Tympanostomy with ventilation tube insertion is the most common otologic surgery. Many surgeons recommend water precautions, although its utility is questioned. We aimed to investigate if water precautions reduce the rate of otorrhea after transtympanic tube insertion. Study Design Multicenter randomized controlled trial. Subjects and Methods A total of 244 children aged 2 to 10 years undergoing their first set of Shepard tubes for otitis media with effusion and concomitant adenoidectomy were randomized to 2 groups: 1 with ear protection during water exposure (ear plugs and headbands, n = 130) and 1 without (n = 114). Bathing or swimming with unprotected ears was considered the exposure event and incidence of otorrhea, the primary outcome. Outcomes were assessed during the 6-month follow-up period. Results In the water precaution group, 32% had at least 1 episode of otorrhea as compared with 22% in the unprotected group, which was not statistically significant (P = .09). Only 37% of the episodes of otorrhea in the protected group and 36% in the unprotected group had a temporal relation to water exposure (no difference, P = .81). Respectively, 56% and 52% of the episodes of otorrhea were in the context of upper respiratory tract infection. Global quality of life improved significantly, irrespective of whether water protection was prescribed. Conclusion The incidence of otorrhea was not different with or without prescription of ear protection during water exposure among children with tympanostomy tubes, which supports current guideline recommendations that routine water precautions are unnecessary in this population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据