Ventilation tube removal: Does treatment affect perforation closure?
Objective: The study goal was to determine whether treatment of the tympanic membrane at the time of ventilation tube (VT) removal affects closure of the perforation. Study Design: We conducted a retrospective chart review and telephone follow-up of children who underwent VT removal from 1995 throug...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery 2002-06, Vol.126 (6), p.663-668 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 668 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 663 |
| container_title | Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery |
| container_volume | 126 |
| creator | Schwartz, Kara M. Orvidas, Laura J. Weaver, Amy L. Thieling, Sarah E. |
| description | Objective: The study goal was to determine whether treatment of the tympanic membrane at the time of ventilation tube (VT) removal affects closure of the perforation.
Study Design: We conducted a retrospective chart review and telephone follow-up of children who underwent VT removal from 1995 through 1998.
Results: Among 109 patients (162 ears; 58% male), the mean age at VT removal was 6.7 years. Most VTs (59%) were T-tubes, and most (91%) were removed because of prolonged retention (mean 2.3 years). After VT removal, 111 ears (69%) received treatment, most commonly (44%) with 25% trichloroacetic acid (TCA). At the latest follow-up, 151 of the ears (93%) had healed without additional treatment. Treatment failure occurred more frequently in ears not initially treated with TCA (TCA 3% failure, other treatment 13%, no treatment 8%) and in ears with VTs removed because of otorrhea.
Conclusions: Most perforations healed. TCA may promote closure, but a large randomized clinical trial is needed to eliminate physician bias.
(Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;126:663-668.) |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1067/mhn.2002.125605 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71859608</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1067_mhn.2002.125605</sage_id><els_id>S0194599802000359</els_id><sourcerecordid>71859608</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4942-f50de2a9d2e9ac5f943a9f8b745cce28bbea0e04c3402ea53e9867dac9f863043</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkbFP3DAUh62qCI6DuRvK1Kk5np3YjrtUFLiCdIIFWC3HeWmNkvhqJ1T89_UpJzG1TF6-76enz4R8orCiIOR5_2tYMQC2oowL4B_IgoKSuaio_EgWQFWZc6WqI3Ic4zMACCHlITmiDCpZFHxBrp5wGF1nRueHbJxqzAL2_sV0X7MrjzEbA5qxT0xm2hbtmG0xtD7MvO18nAJ-OyEHrekinu7fJXlcXz9c3uSb-x-3lxeb3JaqZHnLoUFmVMNQGctbVRZGtVUtS24tsqqu0QBCaYsSGBpeoKqEbIxNkCigLJbk87y7Df73hHHUvYsWu84M6KeoJa24ElAl8HwGbfAxBmz1NrjehFdNQe_C6RRO78LpOVwyzvbTU91j88bvSyVAzsAf1-Hre3v6_ubu-5pJwVgyv8xmND9RP_spDCnSfy5RM46p5IvDoKN1OFhsXEgfoBvv_un-BfVsm5Y</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>71859608</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ventilation tube removal: Does treatment affect perforation closure?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>SAGE Complete</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Schwartz, Kara M. ; Orvidas, Laura J. ; Weaver, Amy L. ; Thieling, Sarah E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Schwartz, Kara M. ; Orvidas, Laura J. ; Weaver, Amy L. ; Thieling, Sarah E.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective: The study goal was to determine whether treatment of the tympanic membrane at the time of ventilation tube (VT) removal affects closure of the perforation.
Study Design: We conducted a retrospective chart review and telephone follow-up of children who underwent VT removal from 1995 through 1998.
Results: Among 109 patients (162 ears; 58% male), the mean age at VT removal was 6.7 years. Most VTs (59%) were T-tubes, and most (91%) were removed because of prolonged retention (mean 2.3 years). After VT removal, 111 ears (69%) received treatment, most commonly (44%) with 25% trichloroacetic acid (TCA). At the latest follow-up, 151 of the ears (93%) had healed without additional treatment. Treatment failure occurred more frequently in ears not initially treated with TCA (TCA 3% failure, other treatment 13%, no treatment 8%) and in ears with VTs removed because of otorrhea.
Conclusions: Most perforations healed. TCA may promote closure, but a large randomized clinical trial is needed to eliminate physician bias.
(Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;126:663-668.)</description><identifier>ISSN: 0194-5998</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6817</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1067/mhn.2002.125605</identifier><identifier>PMID: 12087335</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: Mosby, Inc</publisher><subject>Child ; Child, Preschool ; Device Removal - adverse effects ; Device Removal - methods ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Ear Ventilation - instrumentation ; Middle Ear Ventilation - methods ; Probability ; Reoperation ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Assessment ; Treatment Failure ; Treatment Outcome ; Tympanic Membrane - physiology ; Wound Healing - physiology</subject><ispartof>Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, 2002-06, Vol.126 (6), p.663-668</ispartof><rights>2002 American Academy of Otolarynology - Head and Neck Surgery foundation, Inc.</rights><rights>2002 American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation, Inc.</rights><rights>2002 American Association of Otolaryngology‐Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO‐HNSF)</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4942-f50de2a9d2e9ac5f943a9f8b745cce28bbea0e04c3402ea53e9867dac9f863043</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4942-f50de2a9d2e9ac5f943a9f8b745cce28bbea0e04c3402ea53e9867dac9f863043</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1067/mhn.2002.125605$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1067/mhn.2002.125605$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,1414,21802,27907,27908,43604,43605,45557,45558</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12087335$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Schwartz, Kara M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Orvidas, Laura J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weaver, Amy L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thieling, Sarah E.</creatorcontrib><title>Ventilation tube removal: Does treatment affect perforation closure?</title><title>Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery</title><addtitle>Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg</addtitle><description>Objective: The study goal was to determine whether treatment of the tympanic membrane at the time of ventilation tube (VT) removal affects closure of the perforation.
Study Design: We conducted a retrospective chart review and telephone follow-up of children who underwent VT removal from 1995 through 1998.
Results: Among 109 patients (162 ears; 58% male), the mean age at VT removal was 6.7 years. Most VTs (59%) were T-tubes, and most (91%) were removed because of prolonged retention (mean 2.3 years). After VT removal, 111 ears (69%) received treatment, most commonly (44%) with 25% trichloroacetic acid (TCA). At the latest follow-up, 151 of the ears (93%) had healed without additional treatment. Treatment failure occurred more frequently in ears not initially treated with TCA (TCA 3% failure, other treatment 13%, no treatment 8%) and in ears with VTs removed because of otorrhea.
Conclusions: Most perforations healed. TCA may promote closure, but a large randomized clinical trial is needed to eliminate physician bias.
(Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;126:663-668.)</description><subject>Child</subject><subject>Child, Preschool</subject><subject>Device Removal - adverse effects</subject><subject>Device Removal - methods</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Ear Ventilation - instrumentation</subject><subject>Middle Ear Ventilation - methods</subject><subject>Probability</subject><subject>Reoperation</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Risk Assessment</subject><subject>Treatment Failure</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Tympanic Membrane - physiology</subject><subject>Wound Healing - physiology</subject><issn>0194-5998</issn><issn>1097-6817</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkbFP3DAUh62qCI6DuRvK1Kk5np3YjrtUFLiCdIIFWC3HeWmNkvhqJ1T89_UpJzG1TF6-76enz4R8orCiIOR5_2tYMQC2oowL4B_IgoKSuaio_EgWQFWZc6WqI3Ic4zMACCHlITmiDCpZFHxBrp5wGF1nRueHbJxqzAL2_sV0X7MrjzEbA5qxT0xm2hbtmG0xtD7MvO18nAJ-OyEHrekinu7fJXlcXz9c3uSb-x-3lxeb3JaqZHnLoUFmVMNQGctbVRZGtVUtS24tsqqu0QBCaYsSGBpeoKqEbIxNkCigLJbk87y7Df73hHHUvYsWu84M6KeoJa24ElAl8HwGbfAxBmz1NrjehFdNQe_C6RRO78LpOVwyzvbTU91j88bvSyVAzsAf1-Hre3v6_ubu-5pJwVgyv8xmND9RP_spDCnSfy5RM46p5IvDoKN1OFhsXEgfoBvv_un-BfVsm5Y</recordid><startdate>200206</startdate><enddate>200206</enddate><creator>Schwartz, Kara M.</creator><creator>Orvidas, Laura J.</creator><creator>Weaver, Amy L.</creator><creator>Thieling, Sarah E.</creator><general>Mosby, Inc</general><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>8BM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200206</creationdate><title>Ventilation tube removal: Does treatment affect perforation closure?</title><author>Schwartz, Kara M. ; Orvidas, Laura J. ; Weaver, Amy L. ; Thieling, Sarah E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4942-f50de2a9d2e9ac5f943a9f8b745cce28bbea0e04c3402ea53e9867dac9f863043</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Child</topic><topic>Child, Preschool</topic><topic>Device Removal - adverse effects</topic><topic>Device Removal - methods</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Ear Ventilation - instrumentation</topic><topic>Middle Ear Ventilation - methods</topic><topic>Probability</topic><topic>Reoperation</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Risk Assessment</topic><topic>Treatment Failure</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Tympanic Membrane - physiology</topic><topic>Wound Healing - physiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Schwartz, Kara M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Orvidas, Laura J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weaver, Amy L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thieling, Sarah E.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>ComDisDome</collection><jtitle>Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Schwartz, Kara M.</au><au>Orvidas, Laura J.</au><au>Weaver, Amy L.</au><au>Thieling, Sarah E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Ventilation tube removal: Does treatment affect perforation closure?</atitle><jtitle>Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery</jtitle><addtitle>Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg</addtitle><date>2002-06</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>126</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>663</spage><epage>668</epage><pages>663-668</pages><issn>0194-5998</issn><eissn>1097-6817</eissn><abstract>Objective: The study goal was to determine whether treatment of the tympanic membrane at the time of ventilation tube (VT) removal affects closure of the perforation.
Study Design: We conducted a retrospective chart review and telephone follow-up of children who underwent VT removal from 1995 through 1998.
Results: Among 109 patients (162 ears; 58% male), the mean age at VT removal was 6.7 years. Most VTs (59%) were T-tubes, and most (91%) were removed because of prolonged retention (mean 2.3 years). After VT removal, 111 ears (69%) received treatment, most commonly (44%) with 25% trichloroacetic acid (TCA). At the latest follow-up, 151 of the ears (93%) had healed without additional treatment. Treatment failure occurred more frequently in ears not initially treated with TCA (TCA 3% failure, other treatment 13%, no treatment 8%) and in ears with VTs removed because of otorrhea.
Conclusions: Most perforations healed. TCA may promote closure, but a large randomized clinical trial is needed to eliminate physician bias.
(Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;126:663-668.)</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>Mosby, Inc</pub><pmid>12087335</pmid><doi>10.1067/mhn.2002.125605</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0194-5998 |
| ispartof | Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, 2002-06, Vol.126 (6), p.663-668 |
| issn | 0194-5998 1097-6817 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71859608 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; SAGE Complete; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Child Child, Preschool Device Removal - adverse effects Device Removal - methods Female Follow-Up Studies Humans Male Middle Ear Ventilation - instrumentation Middle Ear Ventilation - methods Probability Reoperation Retrospective Studies Risk Assessment Treatment Failure Treatment Outcome Tympanic Membrane - physiology Wound Healing - physiology |
| title | Ventilation tube removal: Does treatment affect perforation closure? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T12%3A05%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ventilation%20tube%20removal:%20Does%20treatment%20affect%20perforation%20closure?&rft.jtitle=Otolaryngology-head%20and%20neck%20surgery&rft.au=Schwartz,%20Kara%20M.&rft.date=2002-06&rft.volume=126&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=663&rft.epage=668&rft.pages=663-668&rft.issn=0194-5998&rft.eissn=1097-6817&rft_id=info:doi/10.1067/mhn.2002.125605&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E71859608%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=71859608&rft_id=info:pmid/12087335&rft_sage_id=10.1067_mhn.2002.125605&rft_els_id=S0194599802000359&rfr_iscdi=true |