Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T19:27:30.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Five-year results for use of single-flanged tympanostomy tubes in children

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2007

J Knutsson  and
M von Unge
J Knutsson*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Västerås Central Hospital, Sweden
M von Unge
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Västerås Central Hospital, Sweden
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Johan Knutsson, Dept of Otorhinolaryngology, Västerås Central Hospital, SE-721 89 Västerås, Sweden. Fax: +46 21 175364 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aims:

To assess the five-year outcome of the use of single-flanged tympanostomy tubes in children, including the time to extrusion, rate of retained tubes and rate of persistent perforation.

Materials and methods:

The medical records relating to 640 single-flanged tympanostomy tubes intended for short-term use in paediatric patients were retrospectively reviewed.

Results and analysis:

We found that 36.4 per cent of the tubes had extruded within 12 months and 71.0 per cent within 24 months. Results showed that 14.1 per cent of the tubes had been removed because of prolonged retention, with a mean time to removal of 38.9 months. The time to extrusion was longer and the rate of retained tubes was higher than those reported for several other short-term tubes. We found that 4.5 per cent of tube insertions had resulted in a persistent perforation, a higher percentage than previously reported for other tubes intended for short-term use. Within five years of tube insertion, 70.5 per cent of the tympanic membranes had normalised.

Keywords

Otitis Media With EffusionMiddle Ear VentilationComplicationsTympanic Membrane Perforation
Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 122 , Issue 6 , June 2008 , pp. 584 - 589
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Part of the study was presented at the XXIX Congress of the Nordic Association of Otolaryngology, June 15–18, 2005, Reykjavik, Iceland.

References

1 Brusis, T, Luckhaupt, H. Perforation of the ear drum. On the history of paracentesis and grommet insertion [in German]. Laryngorhinootologie 1996;75:178–83CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2 Armstrong, BW. A new treatment for chronic secretory otitis media. AMA Arch Otolaryngol 1954;59:653–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3 Kay, DJ, Nelson, M, Rosenfeld, RM. Meta-analysis of tympanostomy tube sequelae. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001;124:374–80CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4 Lous, J, Burton, MJ, Felding, JU, Ovesen, T, Rovers, MM, Williamson, I. Grommets (ventilation tubes) for hearing loss associated with otitis media with effusion in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;1: CD001801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Franklin, JH, Marck, PA. Outcome analysis of children receiving tympanostomy tubes. J Otolaryngol 1998;27:293–7Google Scholar
6 Urben, SL, Nichols, RD. Tympanostomies with tubes: the parent perspective. Laryngoscope 1996;106:1269–73CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7 Bergus, GR, Lofgren, MM. Tubes, antibiotic prophylaxis, or watchful waiting: a decision analysis for managing recurrent acute otitis media. J Fam Pract 1998;46:304–10Google ScholarPubMed
8 Weigel, MT, Parker, MY, Goldsmith, MM, Postma, DS, Pillsbury, HC. A prospective randomized study of four commonly used tympanostomy tubes. Laryngoscope 1989;99:252–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9 Gibb, AG, Mackenzie, IJ. The extrusion rate of grommets. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1985;93:695–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10 Lindstrom, DR, Reuben, B, Jacobson, K, Flanary, VA, Kerschner, JE. Long-term results of Armstrong beveled grommet tympanostomy tubes in children. Laryngoscope 2004;114:490–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11 Todd, GB. Audit of the incidence of persistent perforation of the tympanic membrane following grommet removal or extrusion. J Laryngol Otol 1993;107:593–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12 Van Heerbeek, N, De Saar, GM, Mulder, JJ. Long-term ventilation tubes: results of 726 insertions. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2002;27:378–83CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13 Kim, DS, Moore, PL, Rockley, TJ. Long-term Paparella II grommet use in the management of persistent childhood otitis media: a 5-year follow-up study. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2004;29:553–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14 Golz, A, Netzer, A, Joachims, HZ, Westerman, ST, Gilbert, LM. Ventilation tubes and persisting tympanic membrane perforations. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;120:524–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15 Luxford, WM, Sheehy, JL. Myringotomy and ventilation tubes: a report of 1,568 ears. Laryngoscope 1982;92:1293–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Levine, S, Daly, K, Giebink, GS. Tympanic membrane perforations and tympanostomy tubes. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1994;163:27–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17 Oluwole, M, Mills, RP. Tympanic membrane perforations in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 1996;36:117–23CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18 Klingensmith, MR, Strauss, M, Conner, GH. A comparison of retention and complication rates of large-bore (Paparella II) and small-bore middle ear ventilating tubes. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1985;93:322–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19 Hern, JD, Hasnie, A, Shah, NS. A long-term review of the Shah Permavent tube. J Laryngol Otol 1995;109:277–80CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20 Armstrong, BW. Prolonged middle ear ventilation: the right tube in the right place. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1983;92:582–6Google Scholar
21 Hampton, SM, Adams, DA. Perforation rates after ventilation tube insertion: does the positioning of the tube matter? Clin Otolaryngol 1996;21:548–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22 Hern, JD, Jonathan, DA. Insertion of ventilation tubes: does the site matter? Clin Otolaryngol 1999;24:424–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23 Solomon, PR, Lax, MJ, Smitheringale, AJ. Tympanic membrane perforation following ventilation tube removal in a pediatric setting: a historical study. J Otolaryngol 1993;22:48–9Google Scholar
24 Schwartz, KM, Orvidas, LJ, Weaver, AL, Thieling, SE. Ventilation tube removal: does treatment affect perforation closure? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;126:663–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25 Valtonen, HJ, Qvarnberg, YH, Nuutinen, J. Otological and audiological outcomes five years after tympanostomy in early childhood. Laryngoscope 2002;112:669–75CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed