PubMed · 7362976
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
S Carne. 1980-02-09. Ear syringing.. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.280.6211.374
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Loss of hearing from accumulation of cerumen (ear wax) is a commonly seen problem. Treatment for this condition often involves use of a wax softening or dispersing agent (cerumenolytic) before syringing. A mini-review was undertaken to find out what is the best preparation to use before syringing to facilitate the procedure. Five databases were searched using subject searches combined with methodological filters to find the highest level of evidence to answer the question. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were found and seven in vitro studies that researched the efficacy or effectiveness of a range of products. The RCTs do not show any one product to be more effective. The in vitro studies show Waxsol to be better at dispersing wax followed by sodium bicarbonate. This needs to be demonstrated with in vivo testing comparing all products for effectiveness. Many of the studies suffered from a lack of information. Side effects were not adequately investigated.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: Earwax is a common problem in general practice. The incidence of complaints owing to earwax in general practice in the Netherlands is 39.3 per 1000 patients. AIM: To determine the feasibility of a strategy using water as a quick dispersant for persistent earwax, compared with the usual strategy using oil as a dispersant for three days in a general practice setting. DESIGN OF STUDY: Practice based, prospective controlled intervention study. SETTING: Forty-two patients (59 ears) in four general practices in the Netherlands. METHOD: Patients with persistent earwax were randomised into an intervention group and a control group. For patients in the intervention group, water drops at body temperature were dropped into the impacted ear and the auditory meatus was blocked with a wet wad of cotton. After the patient had waited for 15 minutes in the waiting room a series of attempts at syringing was completed. Patients in the control group received the usual strategy and were instructed to soften the earwax with oil each night before sleeping and to block the auditory meatus with a wad of cotton, for three days. They were asked to come back after three days for the second attempt of syringing. For both strategies the mean number of syringing attempts (and 95% confidence interval) was calculated and compared by testing the difference between the means using a t-test for independent samples. All ears in which the wax was still persistent after another five syringing attempts were given the value of 6 in the calculations. RESULTS: The mean number of syringing attempts needed per patient in the intervention group was 3.0 (95% CI = 2.4 to 3.6) and for the control group, the mean was 2.4 (95% CI = 1.7 to 3.1). The difference between means (0.6, 95% CI = 0.3 to 1.5) was not statistically significant (P = 0.18). CONCLUSION: A patient with persistent earwax can stay in the waiting room following the initial series of five attempts at syringing, with water instilled in the ear canal. After 15 minutes, the earwax is removed as easily as in the usual strategy using oil instilled for three days. The strategy using water as a dispersant for persistent earwax is quick and more convenient for the patient.