Abstract
Although the cleft palate is regarded as a contraindication for Eustachian tube ballooning, the presence of submucosal cleft palate may be overlooked while diagnosing Eustachian tube dysfunction. Therefore, we aimed to determine the incidence of the presence of a hard palate bony notch and vomer defect, which indicate the presence of submucosal cleft palate in patients with Eustachian tube dysfunction. In the Eustachian tube dysfunction group (n = 28), 4 patients (14.3%) exhibited a hard palate bony notch and a concurrent vomer defect. Three of them exhibited the presence of occult submucosal cleft palate, which had not been diagnosed previously. None of the control group (n = 39) showed any of these findings. The hard palate length of patients in the Eustachian tube dysfunction group was significantly lesser than that of those in the control group (34.2 ± 5.6 mm vs. 37.2 ± 2.1 mm, P = 0.016). Patients with Eustachian tube dysfunction have a high incidence of submucosal cleft palate and its occult variant, which are challenging to diagnose without any preexisting suspicion. Clinicians should evaluate the hard palate and vomer to exclude the presence of occult submucosal cleft palate while diagnosing Eustachian tube dysfunction.
Subject terms: Anatomy, Diseases, Risk factors, Signs and symptoms
Introduction
The correlation between cleft palate and Eustachian tube dysfunction (ETD) was revealed several decades ago1,2. ETD was found in 79% of children and 31% of adults who were diagnosed with cleft palate regardless of their type3,4. Clefts of the lip and palate can be categorized as cleft lip with or without cleft palate and isolated cleft palate5. The diagnosis of cleft palate is not challenging because of its obvious features. In addition, the typical symptoms, such as problems in speech and swallowing, also provide clues in diagnosis while screening newborns. However, some patients with submucosal cleft palate (SMCP) are diagnosed late because the cleft is hidden beneath the normal mucosal surface, and therefore, the symptoms are often subclinical. Furthermore, some patients with SMCP who do not meet the triad of clinical criteria (presence of uvula bifida, absence of posterior nasal spine in the hard palate, and presence of zona pellucida in the soft palate) by Calnan exhibit the so-called “occult” SMCP6–8. Although the degrees of deformity in the cleft palate differ, all of them are reported to be related to ETD and otitis media3,4,7.
ETD was recently revisited after the introduction of Eustachian tube balloon dilatation (EBD) surgery. According to Plaza et al., cleft lip/palate is an absolute contraindication for EBD because ETD in the cleft palate is related to the dysfunction of the tensor veli palatini rather than the mechanical obstruction of the tubal lumen9,10. However, the diagnosis of SMCP is challenging if it is not being considered in the differential diagnosis. Furthermore, computed tomography (CT), which is not recommended before EBD according to the clinical consensus statement of 2019, is often essential to diagnose hard plate deformities11.
Nevertheless, the incidence of SMCP in patients with obstructive ETD has not been reported. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the prevalence of hard palate or vomer deformity in patients with ETD because the presence of the hard palate notch (HP notch) indicates the incomplete fusion of tensor veli and levator veli palatini muscles that significantly affect Eustachian tube dynamics12. In addition, vomer malformation is reported in approximately 92% of the patients with SMCP13. Therefore, we also assessed the incidence of possible SMCP (including occult SMCP) in patients with ETD. The results of this study could make the clinicians aware of the possibility of SMCP while diagnosing ETD.
Results
High incidence of the HP notch in the ETD group
The demographic factors of age (P = 0.560) and sex (P = 0.431) were not significantly different between the two groups (Table 1). The mean age of the enrolled patients was 50.8 and 53.5 years in the ETD and control groups, respectively. The proportions of men were 39.3% and 28.2% in the ETD and control groups, respectively. In the ETD group, 60.7% of patients had a history of recurrent otitis media, 89.3% had middle ear pressure < − 50 daPa, and 92.9% had pars tensa retraction. Among the 28 patients with ETD, 14.3% (n = 4) had a V-shaped HP notch, and all of them concomitantly exhibited vomer deformation. In contrast, no patient in the control group had the V-shaped HP notch or vomer deformation. The incidence of HP notch was significantly different between the ETD and control groups (P = 0.027). Furthermore, the vomer-maxilla fusion length (VM length) of patients in the ETD group was significantly lesser (34.2 ± 5.6 mm) than that of patients in the control group (37.2 ± 2.1 mm; P = 0.011; Fig. 1). The average VM length of the 67 enrolled patients (28 in the ETD group and 39 in the control group) was 35.9 ± 4.2 mm. Two (33.3%) and four (66.7%) patients in the ETD and control groups, respectively, had greater VM length than 1 SD (> 40.1 mm), which was comparable to the proportion of patients in each group (41.8% and 58.2%, respectively). Conversely, six patients in the ETD group, including four patients with an HP notch, had a VM length lesser than 1 SD (< 31.7 mm). In addition, VM length was not significantly different between the two groups when excluding four patients with HP notch (P = 0.118).
Table 1.
Comparative evaluation of the ETD and control groups.
| ETD group | Control group | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, mean (SD), years | 50.8 (17.4) | 53.5 (19.5) | 0.560 |
| Men, n (%) | 11 (39.3) | 11 (28.2) | 0.431 |
| Symptoms, n (%) | |||
| Recurrent otitis media with effusion | 17 (60.7) | 0 | |
| Middle ear pressure < − 50 daPa | 25 (89.3) | 0 | |
| Retracted drum | 26 (92.9) | 0 | |
| Tinnitus | 0 | 15 (38.5) | Not applicable |
| External auditory canal chole/mass | 0 | 8 (20.5) | |
| Otitis externa | 0 | 8 (20.5) | |
| Other external auditory canal problem | 0 | 8 (20.5) | |
| Hard palate notch, n (%) | 4 (14.3) | 0.0 | 0.027* |
| Vomer deformity, n (%) | 4 (14.3) | 0.0 | 0.027* |
| Vomer-maxilla fusion length, mean (SD), mm | 34.2 (5.6) | 37.2 (2.1) | 0.016*a |
| Patients, n | 28 | 39 | |
ETD Eustachian tube dysfunction, SD standard deviation.
*P-value < 0.05.
aMann–Whitney test.
Figure 1.

Patients in the ETD group with significantly shorter vomer-maxilla fusion length than those in the control group. Hollow circles indicate the VM length of each subject. Black circles indicate patients with a hard palate bony notch. VM length vomer-maxilla fusion length, ETD Eustachian tube dysfunction group, Control control group, SMCP submucosal cleft palate. *P < 0.05.
Clinical characteristics of patients with an HP notch
Of the four patients with an HP notch, only one who had undergone palatoplasty in childhood reported a history of SMCP. The other three patients had no velopharyngeal or speech problems in their lifetime; none of them exhibited the presence of zona pellucida, while one had bifid uvula, which implies that these patients had occult SMCP. Unlike those who were diagnosed with SMCP in childhood, patients with occult SMCP exhibited otological problems in adulthood. In addition, they had a milder HP notch compared to the patient with SMCP (Fig. 2). All patients with an HP notch had a vomer deformity. The inferior-posterior nasal septum was absent, which enabled the visualization of the bilateral inferior turbinates in a single field (Fig. 3). One patient with occult SMCP had unilateral otological problems, whereas the other 2 with occult SMCP and 1 patient with SMCP had bilateral otological problems. All patients with an HP notch exhibited recurrent otitis media and a middle ear pressure below − 50 daPa. These patients also showed a retracted tympanic membrane, except for one patient with occult SMCP (Table 2).
Figure 2.
Images of the hard palate bony notch (top) and vomer deformity (bottom). (A) Normal hard palate and vomer in patients in the control group. (B) Three patients with occult submucosal cleft palate. (C) Patient with a history of submucosal cleft palate diagnosis.
Figure 3.

Representative nasal endoscopy images of a patient with occult submucosal cleft palate. (A) Normal hard palate (without zona pellucida) and uvula in the resting state and (B) during phonation. Vomer deformity in the inferior-posterior nasal septum defect. Bilateral inferior turbinates in a single field. (C) Nasal endoscopy of the Lt nostril. (D) Nasal endoscopy of the Rt nostril. Gray areas with dotted marginal lines are defective portions of the nasal septum. Lt left, Rt right.
Table 2.
Detailed characteristics of patients with submucosal cleft palate.
| Patient | Age | Sex | Triads | SOM | TM | MEP (daPa) | VM (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SMCP 1 | 16 | F |
HP ZP BU |
Bil | Bil |
R: − 76 L: − 306 |
15.31 |
| oSMCP 1 | 21 | F | HP | Left | No |
R: − 1 L: − 308 |
26.53 |
| oSMCP 2 | 24 | F |
HP BU |
Bil | Bil |
R: − 18 L: − 142 |
24.05 |
| oSMCP 3 | 56 | F | HP | Bil | Bil |
R: − 61 L: type B |
26.98 |
Triads Calnan triads, SOM history of recurrent serous otitis media, TM tympanic membrane retraction, MEP middle ear pressure, VM vomer-maxilla fusion length, SMCP submucosal cleft palate, oSMCP occult submucosal cleft palate, F female, HP hard palate notch, ZP zona pellucida, BU bifid uvula, Bil bilateral, R right, L left.
Discussion
In this study, the HP notch was identified in four patients (14.3%) in the ETD group and none in the control group. Among them, only one patient was diagnosed with SMCP according to the triad of clinical criteria by Calnan. Interestingly, the other three patients with HP notches who had occult SMCP were not diagnosed throughout their lifetime. Although the incidence of occult SMCP has not been reported, the incidence of the presence of the HP notch in the ETD group is reported to be remarkably high considering that the incidence of SMCP is reported to range from 0.02 to 0.08% in newborn screening14,15. In addition, Reiter et al. reported the incidence of occult SMCP as 23.9%, who satisfied the triad of clinical criteria by Calnan out of 439 operated patients with SMCP. Interestingly, this incidence is similar to the incidence of SMCP and occult SMCP in patients in the ETD group in our study (SMCP, 25%; occult SMCP, 75%).
Patients with SMCP, including those with occult SMCP who only have hard palate bony defects without the other two clinical manifestations, tend to be diagnosed later, as indicated in previous studies16–18. Since up to 55% of patients with SMCP can be asymptomatic, they may not be aware of their deformity, similar to the patients in our study7,19–21. Sommerland et al. suggested a grading system for SMCP that considered the presence of the HP notch, bifid uvula, and intraoperative muscular findings. The total score (0–9) for each of the three findings was defined as the SMCP score; they categorized patients with occult SMCP as those with 1–3 SMCP scores22. Patients who only had an HP bony notch in our study could also be diagnosed with occult SMCP, according to Sommerland et al. In addition, since we focused only on the hard palate in the CT scan, the SMCP score of such patients may be higher if we thoroughly evaluated them prospectively. However, this remains inconclusive because their soft palate musculature was not assessed. Considering the symptoms of ETD, these patients may have velopharyngeal dysfunction, which may be evident after a meticulous evaluation is performed.
Clinicians may overlook the presence of SMCP, though the cleft palate is a contraindication for EBD10. According to the clinical consensus statement for EBD published in 2019, establishing a diagnosis of obstructive ETD requires the exclusion of patulous ETD, temporomandibular joint disorders, extrinsic obstruction of the Eustachian tube, superior semicircular canal dehiscence, and endolymphatic hydrops11. Additionally, a thorough recording of history and physical examination are essential to diagnose ETD, though SMCP is not mentioned specifically. Most cases of cleft palate are diagnosed on postnatal physical examination; of these, 7.7% are cases of SMCP, which can be overlooked by the physician16. Moreover, the diagnosis of occult SMCP is even more challenging when patients have subclinical velopharyngeal symptoms. Although the cleft palate is a contraindication for EBD, previous studies on EBD may not have considered the possibility of SMCP10,23–27. This may be because clinicians are prejudiced that cleft palate is an obvious disease that is less likely to be harbored until adulthood. Importantly, patients with occult SMCP in our study developed recurrent otitis media in adulthood, which can further confound clinicians in suspecting an occult SMCP. Thus, clinicians should be aware of the possibility of SMCP when diagnosing ETD. Given the results of this study, a vomer examination using a nasal endoscope and CT for determining the presence of an HP notch are recommended in routine clinical evaluation.
Limitations
This study has several limitations. First, we retrospectively reviewed medical charts and CT images. Thorough physical examination, including the evaluation of velopharyngeal function and magnetic resonance imaging, may support our results. Second, only patients with ETD who satisfied the inclusion criteria were enrolled in this study. Since ETD is closely related to several diseases of the middle ear, investigation of the incidence of SMCP and/or occult SMCP should include evaluation for the presence of other middle ear diseases (e.g., tympanic membrane perforation) in future studies28,29. In addition, although theoretically obvious, there is still a lack of clinical evidence that EBD may not be effective in patients with cleft palate. A retrospective review of patients who underwent EBD, especially refractory cases, can directly provide evidence to clarify if EBD is contraindicated in patients with cleft palate, including those with SMCP.
Conclusion
In conclusion, among patients with ETD, 14.3% exhibited an HP notch and a concomitant vomer deformity. However, no patient in the control group exhibited these findings. Given the results of this study, clinicians must be aware of the possibility of occult SMCP while diagnosing ETD, particularly when determining patients indicated for EBD. Further, the presence of the HP notch and vomer examinations should be routinely performed.
Clinical recommendations
Hard palate and vomer should be evaluated when diagnosing ETD to rule out SMCP. Therefore, a CT scan and nasal endoscopy are recommended at least before surgical intervention.
Methods
Patient enrollment
Patients who visited our clinic from September 1, 2021, to January 31, 2022, were retrospectively reviewed. Forty-one patients who met at least two of the following inclusion criteria in one or both ears were considered for enrollment in the ETD group: (1) history of recurrent serous otitis media (more than 2 times the history of ventilation tube insertion in the same ear after 19 years of age), (2) middle ear pressure < 50 daPa, and (3) retraction of pars tensa. Of these, 13 patients with a history of radiation therapy or head and neck cancer were excluded. One patient was excluded because she was diagnosed with eosinophilic otitis media. Consequently, 28 patients were included in the ETD group. Because the temporal bone CT was routinely conducted to diagnose ETD, all included patients had CT scans. Patients who conducted temporal bone CT scans for external auditory canal disease (n = 27) or tinnitus (n = 15) were considered for inclusion in the control group. Of these, three were excluded because their CT scans showed concomitant middle ear diseases, or they had a history of ear surgery performed for chronic otitis media. Ultimately, 39 patients were enrolled in the control group. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Severance Hospital (Seoul, Korea). The requirement for informed consent was waived owing to the retrospective study design (project 4-2022-0084). This study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Analysis of CT scans
Bony deformities of the hard palate and vomer were identified using 3D-reconstructed CT images. The presence of the HP notch as a V-shaped defect in the posterior hard palate was evaluated and confirmed using the 3D-slicer software (open-source)12,13. Vomer deformity was diagnosed when the posterior edge of the septum was shorter by > 5 mm than the posterior end of the inferior turbinate (shorter side). Hard palate and vomer deformities were quantified by measuring the VM length13, which is the distance between the incisive foramen and the posterior nasal spine of the hard palate (Fig. 4). The presence of the HP notch was independently evaluated by two otolaryngologists (S.H.B. and M.J.) and one oral and maxillofacial surgeon (J.Y.K.) and recorded when all the three blinded investigators agreed on its presence.
Figure 4.
Measurement of vomer-maxilla fusion length (a) and vomer deformity (b) on computed tomography images of patients with a normal hard palate and vomer. (A) Vomer-maxilla fusion length is defined as the length from the incisive foramen to the posterior nasal spine of the hard palate. (B) Vomer deformity is defined when the posterior edge of the septum is ˃ 5 mm shorter than the shorter side of the posterior end of the inferior turbinate (b > 5 mm).
Statistical analysis
Fisher’s exact test was used to evaluate the significance of the differences in proportions between the two groups. The Student’s t-test was used to evaluate the difference in continuous variables between the two groups following the Shapiro–Wilk test performed to determine the normality of the data. The Mann–Whitney test was used when the data were not distributed normally. SPSS 25.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) and Prism 8.0 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA) were used for statistical analyses. Data are presented as mean ± SD. Differences with P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government(MSIP) (NRF-2019R1A2C1084033 to Jinsei Jung).
Author contributions
Concept and design: S.H.B., J.Y.C., J.J. Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: S.H.B., M.J., I.S.M., S.H.K. and J.K. Drafting of the manuscript: S.H.B. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: J.K., J.Y.C. Obtained funding: S.H.B. Administrative, technical, or material support: S.H.B., J.K. Supervision: J.J.
Data availability
The data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Paradise JL, Bluestone CD, Felder H. The universality of otitis media in 50 infants with cleft palate. Pediatrics. 1969;44:35–42. doi: 10.1542/peds.44.1.35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Stool SE, Randall P. Unexpected ear disease in infants with cleft palate. Cleft Palate J. 1967;4:99–103. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Goldman JL, Martinez SA, Ganzel TM. Eustachian tube dysfunction and its sequelae in patients with cleft palate. South Med. J. 1993;86:1236–1237. doi: 10.1097/00007611-199311000-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Gudziol V, Mann WJ. Chronic eustachian tube dysfunction and its sequelae in adult patients with cleft lip and palate. HNO. 2006;54:684–688. doi: 10.1007/s00106-005-1362-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Mossey PA, Little J, Munger RG, Dixon MJ, Shaw WC. Cleft lip and palate. Lancet. 2009;374:1773–1785. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60695-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Calnan J. Submucous cleft palate. Br. J. Plast. Surg. 1954;6:264–282. doi: 10.1016/S0007-1226(53)80060-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Reiter R, Brosch S, Wefel H, Schlomer G, Haase S. The submucous cleft palate: Diagnosis and therapy. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;75:85–88. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2010.10.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Kaplan EN. The occult submucous cleft palate. Cleft Palate J. 1975;12:356–368. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Heidsieck DS, Smarius BJ, Oomen KP, Breugem CC. The role of the tensor veli palatini muscle in the development of cleft palate-associated middle ear problems. Clin. Oral Investig. 2016;20:1389–1401. doi: 10.1007/s00784-016-1828-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Plaza G, Navarro JJ, Alfaro J, Sandoval M, Marco J. Consensus on treatment of obstructive Eustachian tube dysfunction with balloon Eustachian tuboplasty. Acta Otorrinolaringol. Esp. (Engl. Ed.) 2020;71:181–189. doi: 10.1016/j.otorri.2019.01.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Tucci DL, et al. Clinical consensus statement: Balloon dilation of the Eustachian tube. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2019;161:6–17. doi: 10.1177/0194599819848423. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Mori Y, et al. Submucous cleft palate: Variations in bony defects of the hard palate. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2013;51:e220–223. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2013.01.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Ren S, Ma L, Zhou X, Sun Z. Bony defect of palate and vomer in submucous cleft palate patients. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2015;44:63–66. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2014.09.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Weatherley-White RC, Sakura CY, Jr, Brenner LD, Stewart JM, Ott JE. Submucous cleft palate. Its incidence, natural history, and indications for treatment. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1972;49:297–304. doi: 10.1097/00006534-197203000-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Garcia Velasco M, Ysunza A, Hernandez X, Marquez C. Diagnosis and treatment of submucous cleft palate: A review of 108 cases. Cleft Palate J. 1988;25:171–173. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Smit JA, Mulder PP, de Graaf F, de Bakker BS, Breugem CC. Incidence of symptomatic submucous cleft palate in the Netherlands: A retrospective cohort study over a period of 22 years. Cleft Palate Craniofac. J. 2021;58:1121–1127. doi: 10.1177/1055665620977760. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Rozendaal AM, et al. Regional variation in prevalence of oral cleft live births in the Netherlands 1997–2007: Time-trend analysis of data from three Dutch registries. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 2012;158A:66–74. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.34343. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.ten Dam E, van der Heijden P, Korsten-Meijer AG, Goorhuis-Brouwer SM, van der Laan BF. Age of diagnosis and evaluation of consequences of submucous cleft palate. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;77:1019–1024. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.03.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Mcwilliams BJ. Submucous Clefts of the Palate - How Likely Are They to Be Symptomatic. Cleft Palate-Cran J. 1991;28:247–251. doi: 10.1597/1545-1569_1991_028_0247_scotph_2.3.co_2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Isotalo E, Pulkkinen J, Haapanen ML. Speech in 6 year old children with sub-mucous cleft palate. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2007;18:717–722. doi: 10.1097/scs.0b013e3181468cc9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Gosain AK, Conley SF, Marks S, Larson DL. Submucous cleft palate: Diagnostic methods and outcomes of surgical treatment. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1996;97:1497–1509. doi: 10.1097/00006534-199606000-00032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Sommerlad BC, et al. Submucous cleft palate: A grading system and review of 40 consecutive submucous cleft palate repairs. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2004;41:114–123. doi: 10.1597/02-102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Siow JK, Tan JL. Indications for Eustachian tube dilation. Curr. Opin. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2020;28:31–35. doi: 10.1097/MOO.0000000000000601. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.McCoul ED, Anand VK. Eustachian tube balloon dilation surgery. Int. Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2012;2:191–198. doi: 10.1002/alr.21007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Besser G, Dahm V, Riss D, Flak S, Arnoldner C. Balloon Eustachian tuboplasty (BET) in children: Potential of side-controlled clinical trials to examine effectiveness. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2021;133:727–728. doi: 10.1007/s00508-020-01803-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Leichtle A, Hollfelder D, Wollenberg B, Bruchhage KL. Balloon Eustachian Tuboplasty in children. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;274:2411–2419. doi: 10.1007/s00405-017-4517-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Poe D, et al. Balloon dilation of the eustachian tube for dilatory dysfunction: A randomized controlled trial. Laryngoscope. 2018;128:1200–1206. doi: 10.1002/lary.26827. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Seibert JW, Danner CJ. Eustachian tube function and the middle ear. Otolaryngol. Clin North Am. 2006;39:1221–1235. doi: 10.1016/j.otc.2006.08.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Sente M. Importance of the eustachian tube in middle ear function. Med. Pregl. 1995;48:405–406. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.


