[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.211.112.177. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
April 6, 1984

Removal of Cerumen-Reply

Author Affiliations

Chief Editor Archives of Otolaryngology

JAMA. 1984;251(13):1681. doi:10.1001/jama.1984.03340370021012

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.

Abstract

In Reply.—  Regarding the use of high-pressure water irrigation to remove cerumen from the external auditory canal, I am willing to acknowledge both the importance of saving time and the comparative safety of irrigation when the patient has an intact, strong, and healthy tympanic membrane. I also agree that irrigation is a physician error in the presence of tympanotomy tubes but would point out that the error is more likely to occur when irrigation is used routinely than when foreign matter is removed with a cerumen loop or suction. Foreign material, of course, may prevent the examiner from visualizing the presence of the tube.My objection to routine, high-pressure irrigation is based on observation of iatrogenic otitis media in three categories of patients: (1) patients with a tympanotomy tube that is not seen because of foreign material in the external canal, (2) patients with an unsuspected tympanic membrane perforation, and

×