Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ear syringing is a common procedure performed for a variety of symptoms in primary care. Reports of its effectiveness vary considerably and no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed. AIM: To estimate the effect of ear syringing on hearing thresholds and on symptoms leading to ear syringing in general practice. DESIGN OF STUDY: Randomised single-blind controlled trial. Before-and-after self-assessments of symptoms. SETTING: Patients from three general practices in the Bristol area attending twice-weekly clinics dedicated to ear syringing over a 12-week period. METHOD: Patients were randomly assigned to have their hearing tested before and after ear syringing, or twice before ear syringing. Changes in hearing threshold were measured by pure tone audiometry (PTA). All patients completed sef-assessment forms of symptoms using Likert scales before, and one week after, ear syringing. RESULTS: Hearing threshold improved by 10 dB or more in 34% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 21% to 47%) of the intervention group and 1.6% of control group (number needed to treat = 3.1, 95% CI = 2.2 to 5.2, P<0.001). The levels of improvement in the intervention group ranged between 15 dB and 36 dB. The symptoms that most commonly improved included hearing on the phone, pain, a feeling of blocked ears, and hearing one-to-one. There was a strong relationship between the change thresholds, as measure using PTA, and self-reports of hearing improvement. Secondary analysis was unable to identify predictors of objectively measured improvement. CONCLUSION: Ear syringing improved hearing threshold in a substantial proportion of patients. An even larger proportion reported an improvement in symptoms. It was not possible to predict which patients would benefit.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (77.6 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Andersson G., Palmkvist A., Melin L., Arlinger S. Predictors of daily assessed hearing aid use and hearing capability using visual analogue scales. Br J Audiol. 1996 Feb;30(1):27–35. doi: 10.3109/03005369609077927. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Eekhof J. A., de Bock G. H., Le Cessie S., Springer M. P. A quasi-randomised controlled trial of water as a quick softening agent of persistent earwax in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 2001 Aug;51(469):635–637. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gregg J. B. Ruminations upon cerumen: dry vs wet; Indian vs Caucasian. S D J Med. 1985 May;38(5):23–27. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Grossan M. Cerumen removal--current challenges. Ear Nose Throat J. 1998 Jul;77(7):541-6, 548. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hanger H. C., Mulley G. P. Cerumen: its fascination and clinical importance: a review. J R Soc Med. 1992 Jun;85(6):346–349. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Meador J. A. Cerumen impaction in the elderly. J Gerontol Nurs. 1995 Dec;21(12):43–45. doi: 10.3928/0098-9134-19951201-09. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sharp J. F., Wilson J. A., Ross L., Barr-Hamilton R. M. Ear wax removal: a survey of current practice. BMJ. 1990 Dec 1;301(6763):1251–1253. doi: 10.1136/bmj.301.6763.1251. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wilson P. L., Roeser R. J. Cerumen management: professional issues and techniques. J Am Acad Audiol. 1997 Dec;8(6):421–430. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]