Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T07:58:44.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Measurement of the sound intensity during suction of middle-ear fluid following myringotomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2014

J C Wang
Affiliation:
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine, Lubbock, Texas, USA
S J Allen
Affiliation:
Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, Texas, USA
A I Rodriguez
Affiliation:
Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, Texas, USA
C Zahner
Affiliation:
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine, Lubbock, Texas, USA
S Dissanaike
Affiliation:
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine, Lubbock, Texas, USA
S Zupancic
Affiliation:
Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, Texas, USA
J Marchbanks*
Affiliation:
Division of Otolaryngology, Department of Surgery, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, Texas, USA
*
Address for correspondence: Dr John Marchbanks, 3601 4th Street STOP 8312, Lubbock, TX 79430, USA Fax: 001-806-743-2374 E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Objective:

To determine noise intensity during middle-ear aspiration in order to evaluate whether levels can be potentially harmful.

Methods:

In this prospective, observational study, middle-ear effusion was aspirated following myringotomy using a suction instrument with a probe tube microphone. Sound pressure levels and duration were measured, and frequency domain analysis was performed.

Results:

Forty-four ears were analysed, consisting of 20 with mucoid effusion, 11 with serous effusion and 13 with no effusion. Maximum peak sound intensity ranged from 84 to 157 dB. Half of the ears (50 per cent) were exposed to greater than 140 dB; of these, 82 per cent were exposed for longer than 0.2 ms (range, 0.05–14 ms). There was no significant difference in sound pressure level between ears with mucoid and serous effusion; however, ears with mucoid effusion required longer suction times (p < 0.0030). In addition, peak intensity was greater for ears with mucoid effusion versus those with serous or no effusion (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion:

Middle-ear aspiration during myringotomy caused noise levels within a potentially harmful range.

Type
Main Articles
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2014 

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

Presented orally at the Combined Otolaryngology Spring Meeting (The Triological Society), 12 April 2013, Orlando, Florida, USA.

References

1Occupational Safety and Health Administration. In: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=standards&p_id=9735 [14 March 2013]Google Scholar
2Noise and Hearing Loss Prevention: Noise Meter. In: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/noise/noisemeter.html [14 March 2013]Google Scholar
3Wetmore, RF, Henry, WJ, Konkle, DF. Acoustical factors of noise created by suctioning middle ear fluid. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1993;119:762–6Google Scholar
4Nelson, JJ, Giraud, A, Walsh, R, Mortelliti, AJ. Impact on hearing of routine ear suctioning at the tympanic membrane. Am J Otolaryngol 2011;32:100–4Google Scholar
5Tos, M, Lau, T, Plate, S. Sensorineural hearing loss following chronic ear surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1984;93:403–9Google Scholar
6Mills, JH. Noise and children: a review of literature. J Acoust Soc Am 1975;58:767–79Google Scholar
7Humes, LE. Can children's hearing be more readily damaged by noise? Commun Disord Q 1978;2:4955Google Scholar
8Dempster, JH, Mackenzie, K. The resonance frequency of the external auditory canal in children. Ear Hear 1990;11:296–8Google Scholar
9Lonsbury-Martin, BL, Martin, GK. Noise-induced hearing loss. In: Flint, PW, Haughey, BH, Lund, VJ, Niparko, JK, Richardson, MA, Robbins, KT et al. , eds. Otolaryngology: Head and Neck Surgery, 5th edn.Philadelphia: Mosby Elsevier, 2010;2140–52Google Scholar
10Mason, JD, Mason, SM, Gibbin, KP. Raised ABR threshold after suction aspiration of glue from the middle ear: three case studies. J Laryngol Otol 1995;109:726–8Google Scholar
11Dobie, RA. Noise-induced hearing loss. In: Bailey, BJ, Johnson, JT, Newlands, SD, eds. Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, 4th edn.Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006;2189–99Google Scholar
12McRobert, H, Ward, WD. Damage-risk criteria: the trading relation between intensity and the number of nonreverberant impulses. J Acoust Soc Am 1973;53:1297–300Google Scholar
13Spencer, MG. Suction tube noise and myringotomy. J Laryngol Otol 1980;94:383–6Google Scholar
14Parkin, JL, Wood, GS, Wood, RD, McCandless, GA. Drill- and suction-generated noise in mastoid surgery. Arch Otolaryngol 1980;106:92–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Katzke, D, Sesterhenn, G. Suction-generated noise in the external meatus and sensorineural hearing loss. J Laryngol Otol 1982;96:857–63Google Scholar
16Jang, CH, Song, CH, Kim, SH, Wang, PC. Influence of suction tube noise on hearing in pediatric patients who received ventilation tube insertion. Chang Gung Med J 2004;27:734–40Google Scholar
17Mendrygal, M, Roeser, RJ. Ear canal suctioning: a cautionary note for noise-induced hearing loss. Audiol Today 2007;19:35–8Google Scholar
18Yin, X, Stromberg, AK, Duan, M. Evaluation of the noise generated by ontological electrical drills and suction during cadaver surgery. Acta Otolaryngol 2011;131:1132–5Google Scholar
19Youngs, RP, Gatland, DJ. Is aspiration of middle ear effusions prior to ventilation tube insertion really necessary? J Otolaryngol 1988;17:204–6Google Scholar
20Egeli, E, Kiris, M. Is aspiration necessary before tympanostomy tube insertion? Laryngoscope 1998;108:443–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed