Handler S D, Miller L, Potsic W P, Wetmore R F, Marsh R R
Department of Otolaryngology and Human Communication, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, PA 19104.
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1988 Oct;16(1):55-60. doi: 10.1016/0165-5876(88)90100-0.
A prospective controlled study was undertaken in which in 100 children a titanium ventilation tube was inserted in one ear, and a Paparella silicone tube was inserted in the contralateral ear as a control. The tubes were evaluated with respect to length of time of intubation, episodes of otorrhea, and early occlusion. Sixty-five patients were followed for at least one year, or until both tubes had extruded. Long-term follow-up of these patients has revealed little difference in the incidence of tube occlusion, early extrusion, or infection with otorrhea. Since the titanium tube is more than twice as expensive and has no proven advantages over a silicone tube of similar design, we have no reason to recommend its use over the less costly, standard silicon ventilation tube.
进行了一项前瞻性对照研究，在100名儿童中，将一根钛制通气管插入一只耳朵，将一根帕帕雷拉硅胶管插入对侧耳朵作为对照。对这些管子在插管时间、耳漏发作次数和早期堵塞方面进行了评估。65名患者至少随访了一年，或直到两根管子都自行排出。对这些患者的长期随访显示，在管子堵塞、早期排出或耳漏感染的发生率方面几乎没有差异。由于钛管的成本是类似设计硅胶管的两倍多，且没有被证明比硅胶管有优势，我们没有理由推荐使用钛管而不使用成本较低的标准硅胶通气管。
