Hostname: page-component-75d7c8f48-c28dw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-22T18:31:24.335Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hearing aids versus ventilation tubes in persistent otitis media with effusion: a survey of clinical practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2006

A. U. Ahmmed ,
J. W. A. Curley ,
V. E. Newton  and
D. Mukherjee
A. U. Ahmmed
Affiliation:
Fulwood Paediatric Audiology Centre, Fulwood, Preston and the Centre for Human Communication and Deafness, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
J. W. A. Curley
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Royal Preston Hospital, Fulwood, Preston, UK.
V. E. Newton
Affiliation:
Centre for Human Communication and Deafness, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
D. Mukherjee
Affiliation:
Fulwood Paediatric Audiology Centre, Fulwood, Preston, UK.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A postal survey was carried out to determine the current clinical practice amongst consultant otolaryngologists in the UK, regarding re-insertion of ventilation tubes or recommendation of hearing aids in cases of recurrence of otitis media with effusion (OME) after ventilation tube extrusion.

Amongst the 319 respondents, 15 (4.70 per cent) routinely, 146 (45.77 per cent) sometimes, and 158 (49.53 per cent) either never, or very rarely, recommend hearing aids. Hearing aids and ventilation tubes were both suggested to be equally good options by some consultants but they preferred surgery for a number of reasons.

There were inconsistencies in practice and some of the reasons for re-inserting ventilation tubes are not evidence-based. A hearing aid is a non-invasive option and this survey shows a need for a randomized control trial of hearing aids and ventilation tubes in the management of persistent and recurrent OME.

Keywords

Hearing AidsSurgical ProceduresOperativeOtitis Media With Effusion

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 115 , Issue 4 , April 2001 , pp. 274 - 279
Copyright
© Royal Society of Medicine Press Limited 2001

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