| Literature DB >> 30186989 |
Saeid Mahdavi Omran1,2, Zahra Yousefzade2, Soraya Khafri3, Mojtaba Taghizadeh-Armaki1,2, Keyvan Kiakojuri4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND ANDEntities:
Keywords: Ceftizoxime; Clotrimazole; Middle ear; Otomycosis; Tympanic membrane rupture
Year: 2018 PMID: 30186989 PMCID: PMC6101155 DOI: 10.18502/cmm.4.1.30
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Curr Med Mycol ISSN: 2423-3420
Demographic data of the intervention and control groups
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 12 (26.7%) | 15 (37.5%) |
| 27 (38.1%) |
| Female | 33 (73.3%) | 25 (62.5%) | 58 (68.2%) | ||
| Occupation | Unemployed | 3 (6.7%) | 5 (12.5%) |
| 8 (9.4%) |
| Student | 1 (2.2%) | 2 (0.5%) | 3 (3.5%) | ||
| Housewife | 23 (51.1%) | 20 (50%) | 43 (50.6%) | ||
| Employee | 3 (6.7%) | 5 (12.5%) | 8 (9.4%) | ||
| Free job | 13 (28.9%) | 8 (20%) | 21 (24.7%) | ||
| Farmer | 2 (4.4%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.4%) | ||
| Place of residence | City | 29 (64.44%) | 29 (72.5%) |
| 58 (68.24%) |
| Village | 16 (35.56%) | 11 (27.5%) | 27 (31.76%) | ||
| Ear involved | Right | 20 (44.4%) | 16 (38.1%) |
| 36 (41.4%) |
| Left | 25 (55.6%) | 26 (61.1%) | 51 (58.6%) | ||
| Total | - | 45 (51.7%) | 42 (48.3%) | - | 87 (100%) |
There are 40 patients in the control group; in two cases, two samples were taken from both ears, so the total number of samples was 42.
Types of ear manipulation in the studied groups
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type of manipulation | Cotton swab | 18 (72.0 %) | 16 (66.7 %) | 34 (69.3 %) |
| Matchwood | 2 (8.0 %) | 3 (12.5 %) | 5 (10.2 %) | |
| Both cotton swab and matchwood | 5 (20.0 %) | 4 (16.7 %) | 9 (18.3 %) | |
| Others | 0 (0.0 %) | 1 (4.2 %) | 1 (2.0 %) |
Comparison of clinical symptoms in the two groups between the first and second visits
|
|
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Pain | Yes | 35 (77.8 %) | 5 (11.1%) | > 0.001 | -0.66±0.47 | 27 (64.3%) | 16 (38.1%) | > 0.001 | -0.26±0.44 |
| No | 10 (22.2 %) | 40 (88.9%) | 15 (35.7%) | 26 (61.9%) | |||||
| Swelling | Yes | 26 (57.8 %) | 1 (2.2%) | > 0.001 | -0.55±0.51 | 29 (69.0%) | 22 (52.4%) | 0.016 | 0.16±0.37 |
| No | 19 (42.2 %) | 44 (97.8%) | 13 (31.0%) | 20 (47.6%) | |||||
| Itching | Yes | 38 (84.4 %) | 7 (15.6%) | > 0.001 | -0.68±0.46 | 38 (90.5%) | 35 (83.3%) | 0.25 | -0.07±0.26 |
| No | 7 (15.6 %) | 38 (84.4%) | 4 (9.5%) | 7 (16.7%) | |||||
| Secretion | Yes | 39 (86.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | - | -0.86±0.34 | 36 (87%) | 35 (83.3%) | 0.5 | -0.04±0.21 |
| No | 7 (13.3 %) | 45 (100%) | 5 (12.2%) | 7 (16.7%) | |||||
| Hearing loss | Yes | 43 (95.6%) | 23 (51.1 %) | > 0.001 | -0.44±0.5 | 40 (95.2%) | 40 (95.2% | 1.0 | -0.0±0.0 |
| No | 2 (4.4%) | 22 (48.9%) | 2 (4.8%) | 2 (4.8%) | |||||
There was a significant difference between the symptoms of the patients in the case and control groups at the level of α=0.05
Figure 1Size of tympanic membrane perforation in the studied groups
Figure 2Prevalence of the site of tympanic membrane perforation in the studied groups
Comparison of the signs in the two groups between the first and second visits
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Swelling and inflammation | Yes | 33 (73.3%) | 4 (8.9%) | < 0.001 | -0.64±0.48 | 32 (76.2%) | 14 (33.3%) | < 0.001 | -0.42±0.5 |
| No | 12 (26.7%) | 41 (91.1%) | 10 (23.8%) | 28 (66.7%) | |||||
| Secretion | Yes | 33 (77.3%) | 3 (6.7%) | < 0.001 | -0.66±0.47 | 41 (97.6%) | 35 (83.3%) | < 0.031 | 0.14±0.33 |
| No | 12 (26.7%) | 42 (93.3%) | 1 (2.4%) | 7 (16.7%) | |||||
There was a significant difference between the symptoms of the patients in the case and control groups at the level of α=0.05