Druckausgleichende Funktion der Eustachischen Röhre

Jansen, Stefanie; Meyer, Moritz; Hüttenbrink, Karl-Bernd; Beutner, Dirk

doi:10.1007/s00106-016-0293-9

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We could not confirm these findings in this collective, which might be due to the small group and lack of representativeness. In dilatory or not further classified ETD, different statements of normal or elevated ETOPs were described by Meyer and Jansen et al (30)(31)(32).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concordance Analysis of the Pressure Chamber and Tubomanometer According to Estève for the Determination of Eustachian Tube Opening Pressure

Deuss,

Löding,

Breitrück

et al. 2024

Otol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction For the diagnosis of Eustachian tube dysfunction (ETD), clinical procedures such as tympanometry, micro-otoscopy, and maneuvers according to Toynbee and Valsalva only allow an indirect assessment for the moment. With a prevalence of up to 5%, the selection of patients with ETD and its subtypes is clinically relevant. Dynamic methods of Eustachian tube function assessment include a hypo/hyperbaric pressure chamber and Estève’s tubomanometer (TMM). One method of assessing ETD is the evaluation of Eustachian tube opening pressure (ETOP). Material and Methods We performed a concordance analysis between pressure chamber and TMM to determine ETOP. For this purpose, we analyzed the measurements of both methods from 28 healthy subjects using Bland–Altman plots, regression according to Passing–Bablok and Lin’s concordance correlations coefficient. The maximum tolerated clinical deviation of measured values was set at 10%. Results A maximum of 53 measurements of ETOP between pressure chamber and TMM were compared. Mean ETOP for TMM was 28.7 hPa, passive opening was 32 hPa, Toynbee maneuver was 28.4 hPa, and Valsalva maneuver was 54.6 hPa. Concordance analysis revealed following results: passive opening versus TMM: Bland–Altman mean difference 3.3 hPa, limits of agreement ±31.8 hPa; Passing–Bablok regression y = 0.67x + 9.36; Lin’s r ccc = 0.18. Toynbee versus TMM: Bland–Altman mean difference 0.7 hPa, limits of agreement ±35.8 hPa; Passing–Bablok regression y = 0.47x + 14.03; Lin’s r ccc = 0.14. Valsalva versus TMM: Bland–Altman mean difference 24.2 hPa, limits of agreement ±117.5 hPa; Passing–Bablok regression y = 0.17x + 25.12; Lin’s r ccc = 0.18. Conclusion Estève‘s tubomanometer and pressure chamber measurements of ETOP are not concordant. The two methods cannot be interchanged without reservation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concordance Analysis of the Pressure Chamber and Tubomanometer According to Estève for the Determination of Eustachian Tube Opening Pressure

Deuss,

Löding,

Breitrück

et al. 2024

Otol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Intraindividual variability of the Eustachian tube function: a longitudinal study in a pressure chamber

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The Eustachian tube (ET) is essential for fast and direct pressure equalisation between middle ear and ambient pressure. It is not yet known to what extent Eustachian tube function in healthy adults changes in a weekly periodicity due to internal and external factors. This question is particularly interesting with regard to scuba divers among whom there is a need to evaluate intraindividual ET function variability. Methods: Continuous impedance measurement in a pressure chamber was performed three times at one-week intervals between measurements. Twenty healthy participants (40 ears) were enrolled. Using a monoplace hyperbaric chamber, individual subjects were exposed to a standardised pressure profile consisting of a 20 kPa decompression over 1 min, a 40 kPa compression over 2 min, and a 20 kPa decompression over 1 min. Measurements of Eustachian tube opening pressure (ETOP), opening duration (ETOD), and opening frequency (ETOF) were made. Intraindividual variability was assessed. Results: Mean ETOD during compression (actively induced pressure equalisation) on the right side was 273.8 (SD 158.8) ms, 259.4 (157.7) ms, and 249.2 (154.1) ms (Chi-square 7.30, P = 0.026) across weeks 1−3. Mean ETOD for both sides was 265.6 (153.3) ms, 256.1 (154.6) ms, and 245.7 (147.8) ms (Chi-square 10.00, P = 0.007) across weeks 1−3. There were no other significant differences in ETOD, ETOP and ETOF across the three weekly measurements. Conclusions: This longitudinal study suggests low week-to-week intraindividual variability of Eustachian tube function.

show abstract

Druckausgleichende Funktion der Eustachischen Röhre

Abstract: A pressure chamber seems to be suitable to evaluate Eustachian tube function and therapeutic approaches to tube dysfunction. Further studies are needed to assess the value of the pressure chamber in combination with other functional tests.

Cited by 2 publications

References 38 publications

Concordance Analysis of the Pressure Chamber and Tubomanometer According to Estève for the Determination of Eustachian Tube Opening Pressure

Concordance Analysis of the Pressure Chamber and Tubomanometer According to Estève for the Determination of Eustachian Tube Opening Pressure

Intraindividual variability of the Eustachian tube function: a longitudinal study in a pressure chamber

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About