Laser and incisional XXXX media with effusion-a comparative study.

@entity1 @entity2172 @entity5274 @entity2171 @entity393 @entity2346
BACKGROUND: @entity2172 with effusion (OME) or @entity2171 ( @entity2171 ) is a common cause of hearing difficulty in @entity1 . @entity2171 must be detected early and managed properly to prevent conductive @entity393 in @entity1 . It was aimed to compare results of laser myringotomy and conventional myringotomy in terms of hearing improvement, recurrence of @entity2171 and time to put ventilation tube. METHODS: This randomized control trial was conducted from February 2012 to April 2014. @entity1 of 4 years age or older with @entity2171 were included in the study. These @entity1 were investigated with Pure tone audiometry (PTA) and tympanometry to confirm conductive @entity393 . X-Ray nasopharynx lateral view was performed for adenoids. Sixty-six @entity1 were randomly assigned in to 2 groups, (1) treated with laser myringotomy and (2) treated with classical myringotomy. The ears were evaluated for @entity2171 , for presence of perforation and level of hearing. RESULTS: A total of 98 ears in 66 @entity1 underwent intervention. @entity2171 cleared in 44 out of 48 ears with laser myringotomy (LM) as compared to34 out of 50 ears with incisional myringotomy. The perforation was still patent in 36 ears treated with LM while it was found closed in all 50 ears with conventional myringotomy after 2 weeks. The hearing level improved with LM by 10-15 dB after first 3 months. CONCLUSION: The aim of management in @entity2346 media with effusion is ventilation of tympanic cavity. Laser myringotomy is a best alternative to conventional one. It also has comparable results with @entity5274 ( @entity5274 ). The ears with refractory or recurrent @entity2171 should have @entity5274 insertion.
