Timeline for Why are antibiotics and ear tubes the primary treatment for chronic ear infections rather than improving normal drainage through the Eustachian tube?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 9, 2016 at 21:55 | comment | added | anongoodnurse | @rjt - Older children and adults can blow up balloons. I am missing your point. | |
| Feb 9, 2016 at 21:28 | comment | added | rjt | @anongoodnurse, " Regarding that, ear infections most commonly occur in babies and toddlers who can't blow up a balloon (there goes that idea.)" So nothing for older adults just because it is not practical for infants? | |
| Sep 11, 2015 at 7:56 | history | edited | anongoodnurse | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
addressed an error; addressed a question of the OP's
|
| Sep 11, 2015 at 7:54 | comment | added | Dr. Duncan | You keep missing words in your reading @anongoodnurse, I didn't say that the worst case scenario was TM perforation. I said the worst case scenario solution. TM rupture is the solution that can prevent death, it's a solution to the worst case scenario. | |
| Sep 11, 2015 at 7:35 | comment | added | Dr. Duncan | I didn't ask you to address every possible option of treatment. I didn’t ask why these possibilities are bad. I asked why we stick with something with known risks rather than looking for something better, when other options are obviously still unexplored. | |
| Sep 11, 2015 at 7:34 | comment | added | Dr. Duncan | It is a way of inducing increased pressure through forced expiration against a closed airway. That's the definition of the Valsalva maneuver. | |
| Sep 11, 2015 at 7:21 | comment | added | anongoodnurse | Also, it's used mostly to relieve pain, not as a treatment for OM. Finally, I addressed the options you presented. I can't/don't want to address every option you didn't present. (BTW, blowing up a balloon is not an alternate version of the Valsalva maneuver.) | |
| Sep 11, 2015 at 7:08 | comment | added | anongoodnurse | Another thing that hasn't been researched fully: the efficacy of parachutes in prevention of death by jumping out of airplanes. The worst case scenario of chronic otitis media is death, not TM perforation, which is common and usually very benign. As to balloon inflation, you're correct, it's a common (and old) trick for older kids. (Because you mentioned it with stents , I mistakenly assumed you were speculating about something different.) My apologies for that. Regarding that, ear infections most commonly occur in babies and toddlers who can't blow up a balloon (there goes that idea.) ... | |
| Sep 11, 2015 at 7:00 | comment | added | Dr. Duncan | Why you wouldn’t address the idea of balloon inflation is beyond me. It’s an alternate version of a valsalva maneuver with no serious risk that I’m aware of. There’s no surgery, and it is currently used as an effective treatment in some areas. See also, the Otovent. The procedure is supposed to temporarily open the ET and may allow it to drain. I just don’t have enough research on the topic to know the veracity of the idea. Here is the cochrane review from 2013 that came to the same conclusion that I did that there is not enough evidence. bibliotecacochrane.com/pdf/CD006285.pdf | |
| Sep 11, 2015 at 7:00 | comment | added | Dr. Duncan | “Finally, you are mistaken that there are no attempts to treat (improve) ET dysfunction. There are surgical procedures available for those with severe ETD.” I never even implied that there were no attempts to improve ET function, I merely asked why there were not more. Your answer approaches this entire question from a disaster point of view. The surgical procedures are for severe ETD. My question implies a wellness point of view. Improving function early so that it never gets to emergency levels. | |
| Sep 11, 2015 at 6:59 | comment | added | Dr. Duncan | If I understand it correctly your answer to why there is not more effort made to enhancing ET function is that the function is complicated, full length stents would be bad, and the solution of ear tubes mimics the worst case scenario solution that the body naturally produces so… (and you didn’t state) so I’ll take the implication that no further attempts to improve ET function should be investigated despite being present? That doesn’t really answer my question. | |
| Sep 11, 2015 at 6:59 | comment | added | Dr. Duncan | I’m not looking for support and I didn’t make any proposal. I merely suggested two possible alternative treatments that have been used, but not researched fully. There are others I have found, but figured that listing a couple would imply that there may be many possibilities. I didn’t ask why these possibilities are bad. I asked why we stick with something with known risks rather than looking for something better, when other options are obviously still unexplored. | |
| Sep 11, 2015 at 3:27 | history | edited | anongoodnurse | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
typos, forgot to address spontaneous blockage as complication of ET stents.
|
| Sep 11, 2015 at 0:05 | history | edited | anongoodnurse | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 207 characters in body
|
| Sep 11, 2015 at 0:00 | history | answered | anongoodnurse | CC BY-SA 3.0 |