Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T02:09:27.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparison of clinical outcomes of three different packing materials in the treatment of severe acute otitis externa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2018

D Demir*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Sakarya University Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya, Turkey
M S Yılmaz
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Sakarya University Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya, Turkey
M Güven
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Sakarya University Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya, Turkey
A Kara
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Sakarya University Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya, Turkey
H Elden
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Sakarya University Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya, Turkey
Ü Erkorkmaz
Affiliation:
Department of Biostatistics, Sakarya University Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya, Turkey
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Deniz Demir, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Sakarya University Faculty of Medicine, No: 67/15, 54050 Korucuk/Sakarya, Turkey Fax: +90 264 255 2105 E-mail: drdenizdemir@hotmail.com

Abstract

Objective

To analyse the clinical outcomes of biodegradable synthetic polyurethane foam versus ribbon gauze and ear wick in the treatment of severe acute otitis externa.

Methods

Ninety-two adults with severe acute otitis externa were randomly assigned to groups receiving ear wick (n = 28), ribbon gauze (n = 34) or biodegradable synthetic polyurethane foam (n = 30). Clinical efficacy, in terms of otalgia, oedema, erythema and tenderness of the external auditory canal, was assessed before packing was applied and at follow up on the 3rd and 7th days of presentation.

Results

All packing materials were associated with improved otalgia and oedema on the 3rd day; however, there were significant differences between biodegradable synthetic polyurethane foam and the other packing materials, and there was no significant reduction in tenderness in the biodegradable synthetic polyurethane foam group on the 3rd day. In the ribbon gauze and ear wick groups, improvements in all clinical efficacy scores were statistically significant for all pairwise comparisons.

Conclusion

The three packing materials were all quite effective in treating severe acute otitis externa, but ear wick and ribbon gauze were superior to biodegradable synthetic polyurethane foam for relieving signs and symptoms, especially on the 3rd day.

Type
Main Articles
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2018 

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

Dr D Demir takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

Presented orally at the American Academy of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery Foundation, 18–21 September 2017, San Diego, California, USA.

References

1Bojrab, DI, Bruderly, T, Abdulrazzak, Y. Otitis externa. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1996;29:761–82CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Rosenfeld, RM, Schwartz, SR, Cannon, CR, Roland, PS, Simon, GR, Kumar, KA et al. Clinical practice guideline: acute otitis externa. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014;150:124CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Hawke, M, Wong, J, Krajden, S. Clinical and microbiological features of otitis externa. J Otolaryngol 1984;13:289–95Google Scholar
4Peterkin, GA. Otitis externa. J Laryngol Otol 1974;88:1521CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Schaefer, P, Baugh, RF. Acute otitis externa: an update. Am Fam Physician 2012;86:1055–61Google Scholar
6Pond, F, McCarty, D, O'Leary, S. Randomized trial on the treatment of oedematous acute otitis externa using ear wicks or ribbon gauze: clinical outcome and cost. J Laryngol Otol 2002;116:415–19Google Scholar
7Wang, J, Cai, C, Wang, S. Merocel versus Nasopore for nasal packing: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 2014;9:e93959Google Scholar
8Lorente, J, Sabater, F, Rivas, MP, Fuste, J, Risco, J, Gómez, M. Ciprofloxacin plus fluocinolone acetonide versus ciprofloxacin alone in the treatment of diffuse otitis externa. J Laryngol Otol 2014;128:591–8Google Scholar
9Linstrom, JC, Lucento, EF, Joseph, ME. Infections of the external ear. In: Bailey, BJ, ed. Head and Neck Surgery – Otolaryngology, 3th edn, vol 2. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2001;1711–23Google Scholar
10Barr, GD, al-Khabori, M. A randomized prospective comparison of two methods of administering topical treatment in otitis externa. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1991;16:547–8Google Scholar
11Kaushik, V, Malik, T, Saeed, SR. Interventions for acute otitis externa. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;(1):CD004740Google Scholar
12Rosenfeld, RM, Singer, M, Wasserman, JM, Stinnett, SS. Systematic review of topical antimicrobial therapy for acute otitis externa. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;134:2448CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Emgård, P, Hellström, S. A topical steroid without an antibiotic cures external otitis efficiently: a study in an animal model. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2001;258:287–91Google Scholar
14Emgård, P, Hellström, S. A group III steroid solution without antibiotic components: an effective cure for external otitis. J Laryngol Otol 2005;119:342–7Google Scholar
15Clamp, PJ. Expansile properties of otowicks: an in vitro study. J Laryngol Otol 2008;122:687–90Google Scholar
16Russell, JD, Donnelly, M, McShane, DP, Alun-Jones, T, Walsh, M. What causes acute otitis externa? J Laryngol Otol 1993;107:898901Google Scholar
17Hoadley, AW, Knight, DE. External otitis among swimmers and nonswimmers. Arch Environ Health 1975;30:445–8Google Scholar
18Masood, A, Moumoulidis, I, Ray, S, Chawla, O, Panesar, J. A randomised controlled trial comparing Triadcortyl with 10% glycerine-ichthammol in the initial treatment of severe acute otitis externa. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2008;265:881–5Google Scholar
19Roland, PS, Stroman, DW. Microbiology of acute otitis externa. Laryngoscope 2002;112:1166–77Google Scholar
20Ninkovic, G, Dullo, V, Saunders, NC. Microbiology of otitis externa in the secondary care in United Kingdom and antimicrobial sensitivity. Auris Nasus Larynx 2008;35:480–4Google Scholar