4.1 Review

Diagnosis and management of eosinophilic otitis media: a systematic review

期刊

ACTA OTO-LARYNGOLOGICA
卷 141, 期 6, 页码 579-587

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00016489.2021.1901985

关键词

Eosinophilic; ear; otologic; otitis; otitis media

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Eosinophilic Otitis Media (EOM) is characterized by hearing loss, otitis media with effusion, tympanic membrane perforation, and otorrhea. Treatment options include steroid injections, systemic steroids, and surgery, with intratympanic steroids showing the highest success rate.
Background Eosinophilic Otitis Media (EOM) is a relatively newly defined entity of recurrent and resistant otitis media. Objective To perform a systematic review of otologic manifestations, diagnosis and management of eosinophilic otitis media (EOM). Methods 393 patients diagnosed with EOM of 26 studies met inclusion criteria and were assessed for demographics, otologic manifestations, diagnostic criteria fulfilled, and medical and surgical treatments. Results Most common otologic manifestations were hearing loss (65%), otitis media with effusion (16%), tympanic membrane perforation (13%), and otorrhea (13%). 93% had a predominantly eosinophilic middle ear effusion, 95% had asthma, 85% had a highly viscous middle ear effusion, 71% had nasal polyposis, and 58% had resistance to conventional treatment. For treatment, 39% received intratympanic steroid injections, 33% received systemic steroids, 17% received steroid ear drops and 13% received a biological agent. 39% of patients underwent a surgical intervention with 26% receiving functional endoscopic sinus surgery and 18% receiving myringotomy with tube insertion. Success rates were highest with use of intratympanic steroids (45%), systemic steroids (26%), and biological agents (58%). Conclusion Intratympanic steroids show the most efficacy in treating EOM, and aggressive optimization of asthma may be beneficial in resolving otologic symptoms. Surgery should be reserved for refractory cases and complications.

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

4.1
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