Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T07:11:18.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A randomized prospective trial to compare four different ear packs following permeatal middle ear surgery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

H. Zeitoun ,
G. S. Sandhu ,
M. Kuo  and
M. Macnamara
H. Zeitoun*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, North Staffordshire Hospital, Stoke on Trent, Birmingham, U.K.
G. S. Sandhu
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, North Staffordshire Hospital, Stoke on Trent, Birmingham, U.K.
M. Kuo
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, Birmingham, U.K.
M. Macnamara
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, Birmingham, U.K.
*
Address for correspondence: Mr. H. Zeitoun, 27 Leacroft Lane, Churchbridge, Cannock, Staffs WS11 3JX.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Surgeons choice of an ear pack is dictated by availability, previous training and personal preference. There has been no recent prospective study evaluating the use of different types of ear packs. This randomized prospective study compares the use of BIPP impregnated ribbon gauze (Aurum), Pope wicks (Xomed-Teace), silastic sheeting (Dow Corning) and tri-adcortyl ointment (Squibb) as an ear dressing following ‘clear’ middle ear procedures via a permeatal approach. The results showed that there was no statistically significant difference in post-operative pain and discomfort experienced, neither was there any significant difference regarding the otolaryngologist's assessment of the degree of canal granulation, stenosis or discharge with the above named packs. This study concludes that non-traditional dressings such as tri-adcortyl ointment or simply a thin silastic sheet placed on the drum are no worse than time honoured BIPP. They have, as well, the advantage of being well-tolerated by the patients.

Keywords

SurgeryearEaracheEar canalBiological dressings
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 112 , Issue 2 , February 1998 , pp. 140 - 144
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1998

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.)

References

Frootko, N. G. (1987) Reconstruction of the ear. In Scott-Brown's Otolaryngology. 5th Edition, vol. 3. (Kerr, A. G., ed.), Butterworths & Co. Publishers, London, pp 238–241.Google Scholar
Jensen, M. P., Kardy, P., Braver, S. (1986) The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods. Pain 27: 117–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, J. A. H. (1990) BIPP: A case of toxicity? Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine and Oral Pathology 69: 668–671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Quesne, P. M. (1981) Toxic substances and the nervous system; the role of clinical observation. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 44: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McRae, D., Dilkes, M., Kenyon, G. (1992) The Pope wick as a myringoplasty ear canal dressing. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 106: 327–328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nigam, A., Allwood, M. C. (1990) BIPP - How does it work? Clinical Otolaryngology 15: 173–175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nigam, A., Ruddy, J., Robin, P. E. (1991) BIPP induced methaemoglobinaemia. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 105: 78–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seigel, S. (1956) Non-parametric Statistics: for the Behavioural Sciences. McGraw-Hill, Tokyo, pp 184–193.Google Scholar
Shea, M. C. (1994) Tympanoplasty the undersurface graft technique. In Otologic Surgery, (Backman, D. E., Shelton, C., Arriago, M. A., eds.) W. B. Saunders Company, London, pp 133–140.Google Scholar