Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-fx4k7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-19T11:26:34.116Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aural microsuction for wax impaction: survey of efficacy and patient perception

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2014

S J Prowse  and
O Mulla
S J Prowse*
Affiliation:
Department of ENT Surgery, Walsall Manor Hospital, UK
O Mulla
Affiliation:
Department of ENT Surgery, The General Infirmary, Leeds, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr S Prowse, Department of ENT Surgery, Walsall Manor Hospital, Walsall WS2 9PS, UK Fax: +44 113 3923165 E-mail: simon.prowse@bthft.nhs.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

Cerumen impaction is a common problem, and aural microsuction is a technique frequently employed for its management. This study aimed to quantify the patient perception, safety and efficacy of this procedure.

Methods:

Patients were asked to complete a questionnaire following cerumen clearance by microsuction. The perceived severity of pain, noise-related discomfort and vertigo was scored on a scale of 1 to 10. Patients with mastoid cavities and those who had used a cerumenolytic agent in the preceding week were analysed separately.

Results:

A total of 159 questionnaires were returned. Mean scores (95 per cent confidence intervals) were: pain, 2.34 (2.06–2.62); noise discomfort, 3.03 (2.71–3.35); and vertigo, 1.95 (1.66–2.25). There was successful clearance (i.e. sufficient to view the tympanic membrane) in 91 per cent of cases. Patients who had used cerumenolytics reported significantly less pain and vertigo (p = 0.008 and p < 0.001, respectively) compared with those who had not, whilst patients with mastoid cavities reported greater levels of vertigo (p < 0.001) than those without.

Conclusion:

Aural microsuction is well tolerated. Side effects are mild, and the prior use of cerumenolytics appears to further reduce their severity.

Keywords

Ear WaxCerumenSuctionOutpatients

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 128 , Issue 7 , July 2014 , pp. 621 - 625
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2014 

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

References

1Guest, JF, Greener, MJ, Robinson, AC, Smith, AF. Impacted cerumen: composition, production, epidemiology and management. QJM 2004;97:477–88CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Sharp, JF, Wilson, JA. Ross, L, Barr-Hamilton, RM. Ear wax removal: a survey of current practice. BMJ 1990;301:1251–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Burton, MJ, Doree, C. Ear drops for the removal of ear wax. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;(21):CD004326CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Hand, C, Harvey, I. The effectiveness of topical preparations for the treatment of earwax: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract 2004;54:862–75Google Scholar
5Clegg, AJ, Loveman, E, Gospodarevskaya, E, Harris, P, Bird, A, Bryant, J et al. The safety and effectiveness of different methods of earwax removal: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2010;14:1–192Google Scholar
6Stevenson, RS, Guthrie, D. A History of Otolaryngology. Edinburgh: Livingstone, 1949Google Scholar
7Memel, D, Langley, C, Watkins, C, Laue, B, Birchall, M, Bachmann, M. Effectiveness of syringing in general practice: a randomised controlled trial and patients’ experiences. Br J Gen Pract 2002;52:906–11Google Scholar
8Bird, S. The potential pitfalls of ear syringing. Minimising the risks. Aust Fam Physician 2003;32:150–1Google ScholarPubMed
9Pothier, DD, Hall, C, Gillett, S. A comparison of endoscopic and microscopic removal of wax: a randomised clinical trial. Clin Otolaryngol 2006;31:375–80Google Scholar
10Pothier, DD, Nieuwoudt, D. Endoscopic dewaxing in the audiology department – the Bristol experience. Clin Otolaryngol 2007;32:462–4Google Scholar
11Addams-Williams, J, Howarth, A, Phillipps, JJ. Microsuction aural toilet in ENT outpatients: a questionnaire to evaluate the patient experience. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2010;267:1863–6Google Scholar
12Snelling, JD, Smithard, A, Waddell, A. Noise levels generated within the external auditory canal during microsuction aural toilet and the effect on hearing: a prospective controlled series. Clin Otolaryngol 2009;34:21–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Eekhof, JA, De Bock, GH, Le Cessie, S, Springer, MP. A quasi-randomised controlled trial of water as a quick softening agent of persistent earwax in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 2001;51:635–7Google Scholar