Office‐Based Insertion of Pressure Equalization Tubes: The Role of Laser‐Assisted Tympanic Membrane Fenestration
Authors: Brodsky Linda , Brookhauser Patrick , Chait David , Reilly James , Deutsch Ellen , Cook Stephen , Waner Milton , Shaha Steven , Nauenberg Eric 
Published: November 2003

Objective: To describe the role of the hand‐held otoscope combined with a flashscanner CO2 laser, OtoLAM (ESC/Sharplan, Yokneam, Israel), for pressure equalization tube (PET) insertion in an office setting.

Study Design: Prospective, multisite, clinical cohort trial (Institutional Review Board approved; informed consent) in the setting of pediatric otolaryngology outpatient departments at four tertiary care children's hospitals.

Methods: Selected for the study were 54 patients (96 ears), ages 6 months to 23 years, who met standard indications for PET insertion using cold‐knife myringotomy and tube insertion under general anesthesia. PETs were indicated for recurrent otitis media, chronic otitis media with effusion, and eustachian tube dysfunction‐all unresponsive to medical therapy. Topical anesthesia was achieved with iontophoresis (n = 1) or topical anesthesia: 8% tetracaine on an Otowick (Xomed Surgical Products, Jacksonville, FL, catalogue No. 400141) against the tympanic membrane for 45 to 180 minutes (n = 53). Laser‐assisted tympanic membrane fenestration was performed with the OtoLAM set at single pulse, 2.0‐ to 2.6‐mm spot size, and between 3 and 18 W. Insertion of grommets was accomplished using the otomicroscope and an “alligator” microforceps. Restraints with papoose were used in 79% of children with a mean age of 34.4 months (SD = 60.9 mo). Clinical, parent/patient, and physician satisfaction and comparative cost impact outcomes are described.

Results: All ears but three (3%) underwent successful placement of a PET. Pain was described as “absent” in 39%, “present but tolerable” in 30%, and “severe” in 30% of children at the time of procedure; 5 minutes after the procedure pain was described as “absent” in 75%, “present but tolerable” in 22%, and “severe” in 3%. Tube plugging (3 of 74 available ears; 4%) or persistent otorrhea (1 of 74 ears; 1.4%) occurred infrequently at the 1‐month follow‐up. Before PET insertion, hearing loss was noted in 66% of cases (mild, 38%; moderate, 22%; and severe, 6%). Mild hearing loss was noted in only 8% and moderate hearing loss in 2% of 47 (50%) of the ears at the 3‐month follow‐up. Ninety‐two percent of parents were highly satisfied with the procedure in preference to PETs in the operating room under general anesthesia, and 97% preferred OtoLAM with PET insertion, rather than further courses of antibiotics; only one parent would rather have had the PET insertion under general anesthesia. Cost savings to health care organizations, particularly payers, and to parents are substantial (32%‐48%) and warrant attention. Cost to the physician is manageable only if an appropriate approach to the third party payers results in a substantial increase in reimbursements.

Conclusions: The data indicate excellent clinical effectiveness, reduced risk, and high parent and physician satisfaction. Strong incentives for physicians to use this technique are in all stakeholders' best interests. These incentives need to evolve as soon as possible for the more widespread acceptance of OtoLAM with PET insertion in an office setting for appropriately selected patients.