4.5 Article

Assessment of Pediatric Middle Ear Effusions With Wideband Tympanometry

期刊

OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY
卷 165, 期 3, 页码 465-469

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0194599820978262

关键词

wideband tympanometry; wideband reflectance; otitis media; middle ear effusion

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [U54 GM104942] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

WBT has potential use to differentiate types of MEE, with further studies needed to investigate its clinical application.
Objective To determine if wideband tympanometry (WBT) can differentiate types of middle ear effusion (MEE): serous, mucoid, and purulent. Study Design Prospective cohort study. Setting Tertiary care children's hospital. Methods Children who met American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery's guidelines for ventilation tube insertion had WBT after anesthesia induction but before tympanotomy. MEE was categorized into 1 of 4 comparison groups: serous effusion, mucoid effusion, purulent effusion, or no effusion. WBT measurements were averaged to 16 one-third octave frequency bands, and comparison of the absorbance patterns for each MEE type was performed through a linear mixed effects model. Results A total of 118 children (211 ears) were included: 47 females (39.8%) and 71 males (60.2%). The mean age was 2.73 years (95% CI, 2.25-3.22); mean weight, 14.35 kg (95% CI, 12.85-15.85); and mean Z score, 1.13 (95% CI, -0.64 to 2.33). Effusions included 61 mucoid (28.9%), 30 purulent (14.2%), and 14 serous (6.6%), with 106 (50.2%) having no effusion. No significant differences were found for sex, race, age, weight, or Z score among the 4 types of effusion (P < .05). WBT showed a significant difference in median absorption among the effusion groups (P < .001), with a medium effect size of 0.35. Conclusions WBT has potential use to differentiate types of MEE and should be studied further as a tool for investigating how the natural history and management of serous and mucoid effusions may differ.

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