Premium
A non‐randomized comparison of earwax removal with a ‘Do‐it‐yourself’ ear vacuum kit and a Jobson‐Horne Probe
Author(s) -
Leong A.C.,
Aldren C.
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
clinical otolaryngology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.914
H-Index - 68
eISSN - 1749-4486
pISSN - 1749-4478
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2273.2005.01020.x
Subject(s) - medicine , suction , surgery , hearing aid , audiology , mechanical engineering , engineering
Objectives: Do‐it‐yourself ear vacuum kits (ear vacs) have recently been introduced as an effective method of earwax removal. This study assesses the efficacy of ear vacs in comparison with a conventional mechanical method of earwax removal, the Jobson‐Horne probe. Methods: Forty healthy relatives who had accompanied family members to orthopaedic and haematology clinics were screened with otoscopy. Sixteen participants with earwax were selected. Main outcome measures: (i) Weight of earwax removed, (ii) proportion of tympanic membrane visible before and after each intervention, (iii) participants’ subjective assessment of any improvement in hearing. Suction pressure generated by the ear vac was also compared with that of microsuctioning. Results: No earwax was removed with the ear vac but the Jobson‐Horne probe was significantly more effective at removing a greater weight of earwax ( P < 0.001, mean weight 92.4 mg). There was no improvement in visibility of the tympanic membrane after the ear vac but the Jobson‐Horne probe restored visibility to 100% ( P < 0.001). No participant felt that there was an improvement in their hearing after the ear vac, but the majority (88%) reported an improvement in their hearing after the Jobson‐horne probe. Conclusion: A Jobson‐Horne probe is significantly more effective than an ear vac for the removal of earwax.