Related Experiment Videos
Aseptic surgical technique and postgrommet otorrhoea
Tunde Odutoye1, Anthony McGilligan, Peter J Robb
1Department of Ear, Nose and Throat Surgery, Whipps Cross Hospital, London, UK. babatunde.odutoye@virgin.net
International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology
|December 10, 2003
Summary
This study on grommet insertion found no significant difference in postoperative ear discharge (otorrhoea) between sterile and non-sterile glove techniques. This suggests a safer, more cost-efficient approach to myringotomy and grommet procedures.
Area of Science:
- Otolaryngology
- Surgical Infection Control
Background:
- Myringotomy with grommet insertion is a frequent surgical procedure in Europe.
- Postoperative otorrhoea is a common complication following grommet insertion.
- Surgical asepsis protocols for this procedure are debated.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the efficacy of two different surgical asepsis techniques during grommet insertion.
- To determine if sterile gloves and masks impact postoperative otorrhoea rates compared to clean, non-sterile gloves.
Main Methods:
- A prospective study involving 35 patients (70 ears) undergoing grommet insertion.
- Each patient served as their own control, with one ear operated on using sterile gloves and masks, and the other using only clean, non-sterile gloves.
- Postoperative discharge was monitored for 14 days.
Main Results:
- Otorrhoea occurred in 5 out of 70 ears within 14 days post-surgery.
- Three cases of otorrhoea were in the sterile technique group, and two were in the non-sterile group.
- No statistically significant difference in the incidence of postoperative otorrhoea was observed between the two methods.
Conclusions:
- The degree of surgical asepsis (sterile vs. non-sterile gloves) does not significantly affect the incidence of postoperative otorrhoea after grommet insertion.
- Grommet insertion can be performed safely using a less stringent, more cost-efficient asepsis method.
- Findings support optimizing surgical protocols for cost-effectiveness without compromising patient safety.