From the publishers of The New England Journal of Medicine

Save time and stay informed. Our physician-editors offer you clinical perspectives on key research and news.

  1. Home>
  2. Specialties>
  3. Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine>
  4. Summary and Comment

Do Tympanostomy Tubes Improve Developmental Outcomes?

Placement of tympanostomy tubes in otherwise healthy children with persistent middle-ear effusion does not appear to improve developmental outcomes

After development of middle-ear effusion, many children have tympanostomy tubes inserted to improve hearing and possibly to improve long-term developmental outcomes. Investigators in Pittsburgh randomized 395 children younger than 3 years who had persistent bilateral effusion (for 90 days) or unilateral effusion (for 135 days) to undergo insertion of tympanostomy tubes either promptly or up to 9 months later if effusion persisted.

At age 6, 85% of children in the prompt-insertion group versus 41% in the delayed-insertion group had received tubes. No differences were observed between groups in mean scores on 29 of 30 measures used to assess cognitive, language, speech, and psychosocial development. For example, mean verbal IQ scores were identical (98) in the two groups. No differences were observed in analyses adjusted for age at randomization, type of middle-ear effusion (continuous, bilateral, or unilateral), or degree of hearing loss.

Comment: These authors are to be congratulated for conducting an important and meticulous study. They are careful to note that the results cannot be generalized to children who are not otherwise healthy or who have effusion accompanied by moderate- to-severe hearing loss. Thus, placement of tympanostomy tubes in children with persistent middle-ear effusion does not appear to improve developmental outcomes, at least up to age 6.

— Howard Bauchner, MD

Published in Journal Watch Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine November 28, 2005

Citation(s):

Paradise JL et al. Developmental outcomes after early or delayed insertion of tympanostomy tubes. N Engl J Med 2005 Aug 11; 353:576-86.

Your Remark:

Reader Remarks are intended to encourage lively discussion of clinical topics with your peers in the medical community. Please consider this when composing your remark.

Fields marked with an * are required.

Name as you'd like it to appear:

Submitting a comment indicates you have read and agreed to the remark guidelines and declare:*

PRIVACY: We will not use your email address, submitted for a comment, for any other purpose nor sell, rent, or share your e-mail address with any third parties. Please see our Privacy Policy.

 

CLEAR erases anything you've added in any part of the form. CONTINUE allows you to check your entire post (and edit it if necessary) before submitting.

To ensure that your Reader Remark is not formatted as one long paragraph, precede new paragraphs with either a blank line or an indentation.

Search

Advanced

Article Tools

Reader Remarks

Sign-In

Forgot your password?

New to Journal Watch?

E-mail Alerts

Delivered to your inbox.
Tailored to your interests. Free.

Sign Up Now!

Journal Watch Newsletters

Available in 13 specialties with convenient delivery and 10 free online CME exams.

Subscribe Now!

Copyright © 2005. Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.