Literature DB >> 14662569

Randomized clinical trial of docusate, triethanolamine polypeptide, and irrigation in cerumen removal in children.

Valerie N Whatley1, Carey L Dodds, Ronald I Paul.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cerumen obstructing visualization of the tympanic membrane in children is a common and frustrating problem. Docusate sodium, triethanolamine polypeptide, and saline were compared to determine their effectiveness in relieving cerumen obstruction in children.
METHODS: A randomized, controlled, double-blind trial was performed on pediatric patients aged 6 months through 5 years with cerumen obstruction. The enrolling physician determined whether the cerumen completely or partially obstructed visualization of the tympanic membrane. One milliliter of docusate sodium, triethanolamine polypeptide, or normal saline as control was placed into the patient's ear canal. If the tympanic membrane was not completely visualized after 15 minutes, the ear was irrigated with 50 mL of tepid water. Irrigation was repeated a second time if needed. The main outcome was the proportion of tympanic membranes that were completely visualized after cerumeno-eblytic agents or control saline, alone or with irrigation if needed.
RESULTS: Of 92 patients enrolled, 34 received docusate sodium; 30, triethanolamine polypeptide; and 28, saline. Mean +/- SD patient age was 34.7 +/- 18.1 months, and 50 (54%) of the patients were girls. Groups were similar in age, race, sex, ear enrolled, wax consistency, and degree of obstruction. There was no significant difference in the proportion of tympanic membranes completely visualized after treatment with docusate (18/34; 53%), triethanolamine polypeptide (13/30; 43%), or saline (19/28; 68%) (P =.17).
CONCLUSION: Application of docusate sodium or triethanolamine polypeptide did not significantly improve the proportion of tympanic membranes that were completely visualized vs application of the saline control.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14662569     DOI: 10.1001/archpedi.157.12.1177

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med        ISSN: 1072-4710


  6 in total

Review 1.  Ear wax removal interventions: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

Authors:  Emma Loveman; Elena Gospodarevskaya; Andy Clegg; Jackie Bryant; Petra Harris; Alex Bird; David A Scott; Peter Davidson; Paul Little; Richard Coppin
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 2.  [Complication rate of out-patient removal of ear wax: systematic review of the literature].

Authors:  G Schmiemann; C Kruschinski
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 1.284

Review 3.  The effectiveness of topical preparations for the treatment of earwax: a systematic review.

Authors:  Christopher Hand; Ian Harvey
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  Cerumen Impaction Removal in General Practices: A Comparison of Approved Standard Products.

Authors:  Fritz Meyer; Rebekka Preuß; Aniela Angelow; Jean-François Chenot; Elisabeth Meyer; Simone Kiel
Journal:  J Prim Care Community Health       Date:  2020 Jan-Dec

Review 5.  Ear drops for the removal of ear wax.

Authors:  Ksenia Aaron; Tess E Cooper; Laura Warner; Martin J Burton
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-07-25

Review 6.  WITHDRAWN: Ear drops for the removal of ear wax.

Authors:  Martin J Burton; Carolyn Doree
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-07-24
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.