Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7xsfk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T09:36:41.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Eustachian tube dysfunction after using different types of masks during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2024

Nesibe Gül Yüksel Aslıer Open the ORCID record for Nesibe Gül Yüksel Aslıer [Opens in a new window]  and
Mesut Karataş
Nesibe Gül Yüksel Aslıer*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Health Science University, Bursa Yuksek Ihtisas Training and Research Hospital, Bursa, Turkey
Mesut Karataş
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Health Science University, Bursa Yuksek Ihtisas Training and Research Hospital, Bursa, Turkey
*
Corresponding author: Nesibe Gül Yüksel Aslıer; Email: nesibe.gul.yuksel@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the relationship between the use of different types of masks (N95/filtering facepiece type 2, surgical) and Eustachian tube dysfunction in healthcare workers.

Methods

The study included 37 healthcare workers using N95/filtering facepiece type 2 masks and 35 using surgical masks for at least 6 hours per day, and 42 volunteers who are not healthcare workers using surgical masks for less than 6 hours per day. Participants’ demographic features, clinical data and Eustachian Tube Dysfunction Questionnaire scores were compared.

Results

The frequencies of autophony and aural fullness were significantly higher in the healthcare workers using N95/filtering facepiece type 2 masks. Autophony and aural fullness were significantly greater in the post-mask period than the pre-mask period. Middle-ear peak pressures and Eustachian Tube Dysfunction Questionnaire scores were higher in healthcare workers who used N95/filtering facepiece type 2 masks.

Conclusion

Healthcare workers who used N95/filtering facepiece type 2 masks had worsened middle-ear pressures and Eustachian Tube Dysfunction Questionnaire scores. Use of N95/filtering facepiece type 2 masks was associated with higher rates of autophony, aural fullness and higher Eustachian Tube Dysfunction Questionnaire scores in the post-mask period.

Keywords

COVID-19Eustachian tubemiddle earN95 respiratorstympanometry
Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 138 , Issue 7 , July 2024 , pp. 755 - 759
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Nesibe Gül Yüksel Aslıer takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Kunstler, B, Newton, S, Hill, H, Ferguson, J, Hore, P, Mitchell, BG et al. P2/N95 respirators & surgical masks to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection: effectiveness & adverse effects. Infect Dis Health 2022;27:81–95CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tabatabaeizadeh, SA. Airborne transmission of COVID-19 and the role of face mask to prevent it: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Med Res 2021;26:1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: implications for IPC precaution recommendations: scientific brief, 29 March 2020. In: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations [9 February 2024]Google Scholar
Wang, J, Pan, L, Tang, S, Ji, JS, Shi, X. Mask use during COVID-19: a risk adjusted strategy. Environ Pollut 2020;266:115099CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartoszko, JJ, Farooqi, MAM, Alhazzani, W, Loeb, M. Medical masks vs N95 respirators for preventing COVID-19 in healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Influenza Other Respir Viruses 2020;14:365–73CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Azap, A, Erdinç, FŞ. Medical mask or N95 respirator: when and how to use? Turk J Med Sci 2020;50:633–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tysome, JR, Sudhoff, H. The role of the Eustachian tube in middle ear disease. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 2018;81:146–52Google ScholarPubMed
Schilder, A, Bhutta, M, Butler, C, Holy, C, Levine, L, Kvaerner, K et al. Eustachian tube dysfunction: consensus statement on definition, types, clinical presentation and diagnosis. Clin Otolaryngol 2015;40:407–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maddineni, S, Ahmad, I. Updates in Eustachian tube dysfunction. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2022;55:1151–64CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lim, EC, Seet, R, Lee, KH, Wilder-Smith, E, Chuah, B, Ong, B. Headaches and the N95 face-mask amongst healthcare providers. Acta Neurol Scand 2006;113:199–202CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teixeira, MS, Swarts, JD, Alper, CM. Accuracy of the ETDQ-7 for identifying persons with Eustachian tube dysfunction. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018;158:83–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vakharia, RJ, Jani, I, Yadav, S, Kurian, T. To study acute changes in brain oxygenation on MRI in healthcare workers using N95 mask and PPE kits for six hours a day. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2021;31:893–900Google ScholarPubMed
Salati, H, Khamooshi, M, Vahaji, S, Christo, FC, Fletcher, DF, Inthavong, K. N95 respirator mask breathing leads to excessive carbon dioxide inhalation and reduced heat transfer in a human nasal cavity. Phys Fluids (1994) 2021;33:081913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cengiz, C, Can, İH. The effect of N95 and surgical masks on mucociliary clearance function and sinonasal complaints. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2022;279:759–64CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yildiz, S, Yankuncu, A, Toros, SZ, Karaca, ÇT. Nasal mucociliary clearance and sinonasal symptoms in healthcare professionals wearing FFP3 respirators: a prospective cross-sectional study. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2022;84:406–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koseoglu, S, Cakıcı, K, Demirtaş, M, Gokdogan, O, Ucuncu, H. ENT symptoms of mask-wearing in the coronavirus disease 2019 era. J Laryngol Otol 2022;136:645–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kisielinski, K, Giboni, P, Prescher, A, Klosterhalfen, B, Graessel, D, Funken, S et al. Is a mask that covers the mouth and nose free from undesirable side effects in everyday use and free of potential hazards? Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021;18:4344CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bandaru, SV, Augustine, AM, Lepcha, A, Sebastian, S, Gowri, M, Philip, A et al. The effects of N95 mask and face shield on speech perception among healthcare workers in the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic scenario. J Laryngol Otol 2020;134:895–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization. Rational use of personal protective equipment for coronavirus disease (COVID-19): interim guidance, 27 February 2020. In: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/331215/WHO-2019-nCov-IPCPPE_use-2020.1-eng.pdf [9 February 2024]Google Scholar
Huang, J, Huang, V. Evaluation of the efficiency of medical masks and the creation of new medical masks. Int J Med Res 2007;35:213–23CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sinkule, EJ, Powell, JB, Goss, FL. Evaluation of N95 respirator use with a surgical mask cover: effects on breathing resistance and inhaled carbon dioxide. Ann Occup Hyg 2013;57:384–98Google ScholarPubMed
Lee, HP, Wang, DY. Objective assessment of increase in breathing resistance of N95 respirators on human subjects. Ann Occup Hyg 2011;55:917–21Google ScholarPubMed
Nanda, A, Sangineni, KS, Pakhare, V, Ramachandran, G, Chellaboyina, CSN. An observational crossover study of N95 respirator with surgical mask and visor in various combinations on healthy volunteers and their impact on physiological variables. Anesth Essays Res 2022;16:219–25CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, A, Nandini, H, Phulsunga, R, Gupta, V, Naik, S, Goel, P. Eustachian tube dysfunctions due to mask among quarantined healthcare professionals during COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study from Nuh, Haryana (India). Med J Babylon 2021;18:178–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar