Ear Tubes

[Hamhock]

How old was your kid when they had tubes put in their ears for chronic ear infections?

serious answers only.

[Pricetag]

My boy was two years old. At that point he was averaging about one ear infection per month. After they were put in, I don't think he's had a single one.

One has fallen out, and the other one is barely in there now, but he's still not getting the infections.

[Soonrboy]

daughter was 2 also. no problems since. I think they fell out on their own

[Hamhock]

i need someone to say 5 months old.

[JohnnyMack]

I didn't think they recommended it before a year?

[TopDaugIn2000]

I was 5 years old. they removed my adnoids at the same time, I was all better after that.

wish the bastages had taken my tonsils too :mad:


My former boss's baby had em at less than a year, she did fine.

[achiro]

Overused, usually unneccessary, and not really proven all that effective in most long term studies that have been done. Of course why should the medical community use up to date research to back the things that they do to our children.
Antibiotics are being overused for ear infections- http://www.aap.org/sections/media/earinfection.htm but we keep using them

Antibiotic use before the age of one increases the chance of asthma- http://www.asthma.org.uk/news_media/news/antibiotic.html

http://general-medicine.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/2001/504/5

Yet time and time again, studies show the effectiveness of chiropractic care in children for the resolution of ear infections. http://www.chiro.org/pediatrics/ABSTRACTS/Children_with_Otitis.shtml
http://www.chiro.org/pediatrics/ABSTRACTS/Ear_Infection.shtml

But what do I know, I'm not a real doctor.


BTW, there have been studies in recent years that show some usefulness of the tonsils being kept in, so it might be good that you kept them. ;)

[achiro]

oh and :pop: :pop: :pop:
;)

[Mjcpr]

Well that's a new twist.

[TopDaugIn2000]

but I get strep at LEAST twice a year.......stupid tonsils are to blame (in my book)

[Mjcpr]

Sounds like you need a chiropractor.

[achiro]

but I get strep at LEAST twice a year.......stupid tonsils are to blame (in my book)
You can get strep without tonsils too. Maybe you're just puny? :D

[TexasLidig8r]

For both of my kids.. one day after they turned one year old.

It was a constant battle of .. white stuff then pink stuff then white stuff then pink stuff....

After tubes.. no ear infections.

They fell out on their own.

[TopDaugIn2000]

You can get strep without tonsils too. Maybe you're just puny? :D

I've been called a LOT of things, but PUNY isn't usually one of em! :mad:

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I didn't have anything done - I now have high frequency hearing loss.

My mom had the bones behind her ear removed - that's what they did in the early 30s.

[Mjcpr]

I thought they did The Charleston.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I thought they did The Charleston.

Well, that too...;)

[Newbomb Turk]

jr. had tubes put in at about 2. Bunches of infections before, none after. Them suckers stayed in his ears a long time too.

[Hamhock]

Overused, usually unneccessary, and not really proven all that effective in most long term studies that have been done.

i'm not going to argue with your study, but i can tell you the ratio of people i've talked to that say their kid had a ton of ear infections, got tubes, and the ear infections stopped to those who say the tubes didn't help is 20 to 0.

[achiro]

i'm not going to argue with your study, but i can tell you the ratio of people i've talked to that say their kid had a ton of ear infections, got tubes, and the ear infections stopped to those who say the tubes didn't help is 20 to 0.
and the point of that particular study, from the new england journal of medicine, was that the 20 would more than likely have no long term effects regardless. Also, what about side effects? Anesthetics are completely safe right? What about the risk of infection ( http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101805 )? You say your kiddo is only 5 months old? There isn't any way the suggested protocols have been followed before they started suggesting tympanostomy. Sorry but I would not only be looking for a second opinion(and not from the South Oval ;) ) but another pediatrician, one that isn't so quick to jump on the most aggressive form of care.

[HskrGrl]

My daughter got her's last Feb when she was 16 months old. She had probably 5 infections and then she got a double ear infection that no matter what antibiotics she was on wouldn't go away. After about 3 months of the never ending infection she had tubes put in. Thankfully she never seemed too bothered by the infections. If she had we probably would have done it sooner. Since she got the tubes she has not had a single infection.

Did you know... breast milk works just as well for ear infections and pink eye as any medication? Just one drop and you can use it as often as you want (unlike medication that you can only use 2-3 times a day). I myself have never tried this but I have a couple friends that have. It's worked great for them. There's actually even more things it can be used for than just those two. I've used it on bug bites and the itching stopped immediately.

[Mjcpr]

Mongo has a nasty rash if there is anybody out there who could give him a squirt.

[HskrGrl]

I do have to agree that 5 months does seem pretty young. Obviously I am not against kids getting tubes, but it is still a surgery and like any surgery it needs to be taken very seriously. I would go get a second opinion too. Why is it that tubes have been suggested already. Has your baby had multiple infections or one that hasn't gone away for months despite trying many types of medication? Has your baby shown any signs of hearing issues?

[HskrGrl]

Mongo has a nasty rash if there is anybody out there who could give him a squirt.

I think 1tc would be happy to oblige at their next sushi meeting.

[soonersweetie]

18 months...he is now 11 and has had 5 sets of tubes in his ears.

I will say though it's been a long time since he has had an ear infection. So I'm grateful for that.

[Hamhock]

and the point of that particular study, from the new england journal of medicine, was that the 20 would more than likely have no long term effects regardless. Also, what about side effects? Anesthetics are completely safe right? What about the risk of infection ( http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101805 )? You say your kiddo is only 5 months old? There isn't any way the suggested protocols have been followed before they started suggesting tympanostomy. Sorry but I would not only be looking for a second opinion(and not from the South Oval ;) ) but another pediatrician, one that isn't so quick to jump on the most aggressive form of care.


i'm not concerned about the long term effects.

the short-term effects of an ear infection/month are a pain in the rear.

our pediatrician hasn't recommended tubes. i was just curious when that usually happens.

as to the breast milk for ear infections, it works best ingested. my first three kids were on the tit and had zero ear infections between the three.

[Kels]

I didn't have anything done - I now have high frequency hearing loss.

Me too, and the chronic ear infections were horrible. It was really traumatic for me as a little guy. The doctor said that I would grow out of them. Thanks, by the second grade I couldn't hear when the teacher called on me.

Add that to a bunch of guns goin' off around me over a five-year time period and you get chronic hearing loss and tinnitus.

You can see that I'm not bitter about it or anything.

[Hamhock]

Me too, and the chronic ear infections were horrible. It was really traumatic for me as a little guy. The doctor said that I would grow out of them. Thanks, by the second grade I couldn't hear when the teacher called on me.

Add that to a bunch of guns goin' off around me over a five-year time period and you get chronic hearing loss and tinnitus.

You can see that I'm not bitter about it or anything.


did you have tubes?

[olevetonahill]

None of My kids had em and none of My grandkids have had em .
Just sayin

[achiro]

i'm not concerned about the long term effects.

the short-term effects of an ear infection/month are a pain in the rear.
wow!?!?! So I really hope I am misreading this but it sounds like you just said that you really didn't care how it effects your kid in the long term because on the short term it's just so darn inconvenient for you? :confused: Please tell me I misunderstood you.

[soonerboomer93]

never had them, I don't recall ever having any ear infections

[Kels]

did you have tubes?

Nope, they thought at the time that it was too invasive/risky.

[bluedogok]

I was 5 years old. they removed my adnoids at the same time, I was all better after that.

wish the bastages had taken my tonsils too :mad:
My tonsils/adnoids were taken out at about the same age and got the tubes as well. No long term effects that I know of after 37 years


but I get strep at LEAST twice a year.......stupid tonsils are to blame (in my book)
I haven't had strep since they were taken out.


You can get strep without tonsils too. Maybe you're just puny? :D
Everyone that I have known over the years who had strep throat more than once still had their tonsils.

[FirstandGoal]

My daughter had chronic ear infections from the age of 2 weeks up until she was 6 months old. The cycle went like this..... ear infection with all of the symptoms, a visit to the doctor, then a round of antibiotics for a week, a follow up visit the next week, and then a clear week until the infection came back.

She had been on her 7th round of treatment by the time she was 6 months old and the pediatrician was talking about putting in tubes the next time she got it. Evidentally, around the age of 6 months is when you see a big improvement.
Anyways.... one night right when it was about time for her to have another infection, she woke up screaming at about 3am and screamed her lungs out for about 20 minutes, then calmed right back down and went back to sleep. When I went to go get her out of bed a few hours later, she had brown goo that had crusted on either side of her face and got all over the sheets. Both of her eardrums ruptured, even though she had no symptoms of an ear infection that time around. It all turned out well -- no hearing damage and the ruptures allowed for the pressure to equalize and she is now 10 years old and has not had a single infection since then.

[AMSooner]

My son is one year old today. He has had three ear infections, one at six months, one at eight months and one at eleven months. The weaker antibiotic did not work for the last infection. We had to start him on something stronger (omnicef) which did finally work, but he had a fever for 3-4 days with the weaker anitbiotic (amoxicillin). Our pedi said if he has one more infection he will have to refer us to an ENT.

[FaninAma]

The American Academy Of Otolaryngology disagrees with the American Academy of Pediatrics.

http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/ymhn/article/PIIS0194599802000517/abstract


Myringotomy tubes are very effective in reducing the frequency and duration of both acute otitis media and serous otitis. I think 5 months is a bit young and would only consider tube placement in that age group if the patient developed serious complications from their ear infections(such as mastoiditis). I have seen kids 10 to 12 months referred.

The most common time for referral is 15 to 30 months due to the detrimental effects recurrent otitis media and chronic serous otitis have on speech development among that age group. There are other articles that suggest that speech delay due to conductive hearing losses can continue to cause learning problems for kids for a long time even after the hearing loss is corrected.

I think the American Academy of Pediatrics is ran by a bunch of liberal quacks who are more interested in making political statements than they are in critically examining treatment options for patients.

I have treated dozens of patients who went the chiropractor route in treating otitis media whose parents finally gave up when their children were still having recurrent episodes of OM or weren't talking at 2 years of age and beyond. Every patient is different and blanket statements about treatment recommendations based on statistics instead of an individual clinic based approach is bad medicine, IMO.

[Partial Qualifier]

Right around a year old. He had lots of bad ear infection probs before, only one mild infection since. He's 4 now.

[Hamhock]

wow!?!?! So I really hope I am misreading this but it sounds like you just said that you really didn't care how it effects your kid in the long term because on the short term it's just so darn inconvenient for you? :confused: Please tell me I misunderstood you.

you did.

I thought you were arguing that lots of ear infections in an infant didn't have long term effects.

I was simply stating that fear of long term effects of the infections isn't my main motivator for inquiring about the tubes

[achiro]

The American Academy Of Otolaryngology disagrees with the American Academy of Pediatrics.

http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/ymhn/article/PIIS0194599802000517/abstract
Hmmm, so an organization who's "bread and butter" precedure happens to be tubes, promotes tubes? Who'd a thunk it?
BTW, I don't see anything disagreeing with the AAP?



tubes are very effective in reducing the frequency and duration of both acute otitis media and serous otitis. I think 5 months is a bit young and would only consider tube placement in that age group if the patient developed serious complications from their ear infections(such as mastoiditis). I have seen kids 10 to 12 months referred.

The most common time for referral is 15 to 30 months due to the detrimental effects recurrent otitis media and chronic serous otitis have on speech development among that age group. There are other articles that suggest that speech delay due to conductive hearing losses can continue to cause learning problems for kids for a long time even after the hearing loss is corrected.
and it's still surgery? My question is this, I hear what you are saying about hearing loss and mastoiditis, in fact it's pretty much the stance I hear from anyone supporting the types of care we are talking about. BUT what do you say about the repeated studies that show NO long term differences in those treated by repeated antibiotics and surgery and those that were treated more conservatively?
I stand by what I said before, " Of course why should the medical community use up to date research to back the things that they do to our children."


think the American Academy of Pediatrics is ran by a bunch of liberal quacks who are more interested in making political statements than they are in critically examining treatment options for patients.
Is this an opinion? Is this something you can back up? Is this something that you think just because maybe they take a more conservative approach to care than you so they are "wrong"
The parts I quoted from the AAP are basically studies that say that antibiotics are overused. Are you disagreeing with that stance because if you are, you truly do have your head in the sand.


have treated dozens of patients who went the chiropractor route in treating otitis media whose parents finally gave up when their children were still having recurrent episodes of OM or weren't talking at 2 years of age and beyond.
and I have treated hundreds of patients who were completely f-d up by a medical doctor. So what. It kills me when I see this argument because you know that there are so many factors that go into the success of any treatment. ie What does "I went to a chiropractor and it didn't work" mean? Did they go talk to one? Get one adjustment? what? Was the Chiro they saw worth a ****?


patient is different and blanket statements about treatment recommendations based on statistics instead of an individual clinic based approach is bad medicine, IMO.
So if it is me you are referring to about making a blanket statement, please find it and quote it for me.
BTW, kind of funny you say this with what you said just above it(that sounds like a bit of a blanket statement to me)


Look what it boils down to is this. Surgery is dangerous, nobody can deny it. I am amazed by people that just jump down that road without trying more conservative care first. Whether it is our kids, or anyone else.. Will Chiropractic work for everyone and every problem? No, and I've never said that it would. But it works frequently enough that it shouldn't be ignored.

[FaninAma]

Achiro, I am actually one of the few physicians I know who is not anti-chiropractor. I have actually referred a few patients to chiropractors for musculoskeletal problems and I especially like the fact that a lot of the yonger chiropractors do a lot of physical therapy type treatment.

I do have a problem with some of the rigid anti-medicine stances that some chirprators have adopted.

Deciding to have surgry is a huge decision. I recommend it only when it's obvious that a child is suffering from chronic hearing loss due to chronic serous otitis. I try all treatment modalities ranging from no treatment to supression antibiotics coupled with nasal steroids. But sometimes the risks of anesthesia and surgery are warraranted in order to restore hearing and allow appropriate speech development to progress.

[StoopTroup]

Dr. Boos here in Tulsa is one of the Chiros that has adopted the "Chiro for the common cold" approach.

He lost me when he was using his thumpers to help me with my shoulder pain.

After a year, I couldn't take it anymore. It did seem to help manage the pain but the in betweens were awful. I sought out another solution and found out I had a FULL ROTATOR CUFF TEAR. I gave Dr. Boos plenty of time to help me and in the end I felt he had become a modern day Witch Doctor.

Hamhock...if your kid needs tubes at 5 months, I think you should ask your Surgeon how many 5 month olds they have put tubes in. Also ask how many have had any reactions to the anesthesia. Giving small kids the general anesthesia for things that might be able to be put off until they are a little older might be something to consider IMO.

If any of the Doctors here on the board want to chime in...I think they should.

However...I really think you should talk to your Docs to let them know your concerns.

Achiro...I still see a Chiro from time to time. Dr. Terry Tatum here in Tulsa is one I trust. He does the more Physical Therapy type stuff. I think he's fantastic.

[Hamhock]

to reiterate, my doctor has not recommended tubes. i was just curious when it usually happens.

[StoopTroup]

I would think a little older than 5 months.

[Zbird]

The American Academy Of Otolaryngology disagrees with the American Academy of Pediatrics.

http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/ymhn/article/PIIS0194599802000517/abstract


Myringotomy tubes are very effective in reducing the frequency and duration of both acute otitis media and serous otitis. I think 5 months is a bit young and would only consider tube placement in that age group if the patient developed serious complications from their ear infections(such as mastoiditis). I have seen kids 10 to 12 months referred.

The most common time for referral is 15 to 30 months due to the detrimental effects recurrent otitis media and chronic serous otitis have on speech development among that age group. There are other articles that suggest that speech delay due to conductive hearing losses can continue to cause learning problems for kids for a long time even after the hearing loss is corrected.

I think the American Academy of Pediatrics is ran by a bunch of liberal quacks who are more interested in making political statements than they are in critically examining treatment options for patients.

I have treated dozens of patients who went the chiropractor route in treating otitis media whose parents finally gave up when their children were still having recurrent episodes of OM or weren't talking at 2 years of age and beyond. Every patient is different and blanket statements about treatment recommendations based on statistics instead of an individual clinic based approach is bad medicine, IMO.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Assn (ASHA) is in agreement with AAOO. Even occasional intermittent mild hearing loss can, and often does result in significant delays in early speech-language development which can
also result in reading difficulty and subsequent life long impairment of learning. Aggressive treatment of recurrent ear infections is in your child's best interests. If you're concerned, see an otolaryngologist and a state licensed / ASHA Certified Audiologist. If you are in an HMO, tell your PCP you want an ENT referral and won't accept less! ENT docs have a complete residency dealing with ears and hearing. General Practitioners and Peds, 2 days at most.

[StoopTroup]

Talked with my Dad a second ago.

He's a retired Ear, Nose and Throat Doc.

He says he may have put some tubes in a child a little younger than two but he can't remember if he did any younger than that...

I would venture to say that any ENT Guy would probably tell you around 2 yrs old.

Sometimes the tissues inside the ear can adhere to one another (grow together) if tubes aren't placed. However, it doesn't happen that frequently and you never know which patient is going to develop that situation.

Again...there are risks involved. Any Chiroprator can explain the risks. ;)

[StoopTroup]

Also...about feeding infants...

There is a distinct difference between feeding a baby with a bottle than from the breast. The difference is that often a child who is on non-breast milk is administered formula milk via a bottle while they are lying down. A child being fed formula should always be held in an upward position so that there is less likelyhood of the milk entering the Eustachean Tube where it possibly might irritate the tender tissue lining of the Eustachean Tube and possibly causing an obstruction of the tube. The obstruction can create a negative pressure in the inner ear drawing the ear drum closer to the opposite wall of the inner ear which would possibly necessitate the need for tubes.

Infants that are breast fed are usually fed in an upright position on the Mother's lap thus most of the problems mentioned in the paragraph above are avoided.

Secondly, Millions upon millions of dollars have been spent in attempting to make cows milk digestible and little results have been achieved over the years. Besides, Infants that are breast fed are less likely to be allergic or their tissues irritated by maternal milk of the same DNA, while cows milk may be an allergic source. That's why goats milk is usually an better alternative than cows milk.

Just a few thoughts in passing from my Dear Old Dad.

ST