| Literature DB >> 28619119 |
Justin M Pyne1, Yaw Amoako-Tuffour1, Guy Earle2, Graham McIntyre1, Michael B Butler1, Manohar Bance3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Eustachian tube (ET) dysfunction can be very difficult to diagnose accurately. Our aim is to determine whether a newly developed sonotubometric test using clicks can reliably detect ET opening during swallowing in normal ET subjects, and patulous ET (PET) in subjects with ET dysfunction.Entities:
Keywords: Clicks; Eustachian tube; Patulous; Sonotubometry
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28619119 PMCID: PMC5472917 DOI: 10.1186/s40463-017-0227-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ISSN: 1916-0208
Median baseline and peak power transmission ratios
| Healthy ET | PET | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| BaseR | PeakR | BaseR | PeakR |
| 0.91 | 1.44 | 1.98 | 5.28 |
Fig. 1Comparison of BaseR between healthy ET and PET groups. A bar graph representation of the baseline power transmission ratio for the healthy ET and PET groups. The PET group (represented by the red bar) was found to have a significantly higher BaseR than the healthy ET group (represented by the blue bar). This finding was statistically significant (p = 0.003)
Fig. 2Comparison of PeakR between healthy ET and PET groups. A bar graph representation of the peak power transmission ratio for the healthy ET and PET groups. The PET group (represented by the red bar) was found to have a significantly higher PeakR than the healthy ET group (represented by the blue bar). This finding was statistically significant (p = 0.003)
Wilcoxon rank sum test for power transmission ratio comparison between healthy ET and PET groups
| Median difference | 95% CI | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy ET BaseR vs. PET BaseR | 1.05 | (0.39 to 2.11) | 0.003 |
| Healthy ET PeakR vs. PET PeakR | 3.84 | (0.57 to 4.63) | 0.003 |
| Healthy ET BaseR vs. Healthy PeakR | 0.51 | (0.12 to 1.20) | 0.004 |
| PET BaseR vs. PET PeakR | 3.30 | (0.083 to 4.48) | 0.041 |
Stimulus and no-stimulus median peak power transmission ratio for healthy ET and PET groups
| Healthy ET | PET | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| No-stimulus | Stimulus | No-stimulus | Stimulus |
| 0.85 | 1.44 | 0.89 | 5.28 |
Wilcoxon rank sum rest for no-stimulus peak power transmission ratio comparison
| Median difference | 95% CI | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy ET vs. PET | 0.03 | (−0.11 to 0.21) | 0.830 |
Wilcoxon rank sum test for stimulus and no-stimulus peak power transmission ratio comparison
| Median difference | 95% CI | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy ET Group | 0.59 | (0.43 to 1.57) | <0.001 |
| PET Group | 4.40 | (0.46 to 5.73) | 0.031 |
Fig. 3Individual BaseR vs PeakR for healthy ET and PET subjects. A scatter plot comparison of the individual BaseR and PeakR for healthy ET subjects (shown as blue circles) and PET subjects (shown as red circles). BaseR is represented by the x-axis and PeakR is represented by the y-axis. While there is some variation in both the healthy ET and PET results, the general trend of lower BaseR and PeakR for the healthy group can be observed. This is better appreciated in Fig. 2
Fig. 4Age vs. PeakR and BaseR for all subjects undergoing sonotubometric testing. A scatter plot of age versus PeakR and BaseR for all study subjects. Age (years) is represented by the x-axis and power transmission ratio is represented by the y-axis. A moderately positive correlation was observed for both BaseR and PeakR, and age (p = 0.003, p < 0.001, respectively). These findings are highlighted in Table 6
Summary of correlation testing for BaseR and PeakR, and age for the healthy ET group
| Correlation coefficient | 95% CI | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| BaseR vs. age | 0.10 | (−0.37 to 0.53) | 0.685 |
| PeakR vs. age | 0.51 | (0.08 to 0.78) | 0.024 |