A blinded in‐vitro study to compare the efficacy of five topical ear drops in clearing grommets blocked with thick middle ear effusion fluid1
Objective: To compare the efficacy of 5% NaHCO3, 3% H2O2, Sofradex (dexamethasone sodium metasulphobenzoate 0.05%, framycetin sulphate 0.5%, gramicidin 0.005%), 0.33% acetic acid and 0.9% NaCl eardrops in clearing grommets blocked with harvested thick middle ear effusion fluid. Study design: A bli...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical otolaryngology 2005-02, Vol.30 (1), p.29-34 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Objective: To compare the efficacy of 5% NaHCO3, 3% H2O2, Sofradex (dexamethasone sodium metasulphobenzoate 0.05%, framycetin sulphate 0.5%, gramicidin 0.005%), 0.33% acetic acid and 0.9% NaCl eardrops in clearing grommets blocked with harvested thick middle ear effusion fluid.
Study design: A blinded in‐vitro study.
Setting: District general hospital.
Participants: A total of 473 grommets were blocked with freshly harvested unpooled thick middle ear effusion fluid obtained from 68 patients.
Main outcome measures: Patency of the grommets before and 7 days after intervention was ascertained by tympanometry and close visual inspection.
Results: Instillation of eardrops leads to a statistically significant increase in the clearance of grommets as compared with not using any drops (χ2 = 14.3, d.f. = 5, P = 0.006). The numbers needed to treat were 2.8 for NaHCO3, 3.2 for 0.9% NaCl, 3.9 for 0.33% acetic Acid, 4.4 for Sofradex and 9.5 for H2O2 eardrops. Pair‐wise comparison was only significant for comparison between 5% NaHCO3 and 3% H2O2 eardrops (Bonferroni corrected P = 0.01, odds ratio = 4.3, CI = 1.9–9.9).
Conclusions: Use of eardrops leads to a clinically and statistically significant increase in the clearance of blocked grommets. Of the five drops used, 5% NaHCO3 was the most efficacious and 3% H2O2 the least efficacious. Limitations of this in‐vitro study are recognized and a prospective in‐vivo double blind randomized controlled trial is planned. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1749-4478 1749-4486 |
DOI: | 10.1111/j.1365-2273.2004.00920.x |