Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T22:42:37.068Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation for waterproof ear protectors in swimmers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

A. C. Robinson
A. C. Robinson*
Affiliation:
London
*
A. C. Robinson, F.R.C.S., Department of Otolaryngology, Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London NW3 2QG
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The middle ear cavity is exposed and vulnerable to waterborne infection in patients with grommets, perforated tympanic membranes and after radical mastoidectomy. Patients suffering from chronic otitis externa and those receiving radiotherapy to the head and neck also have an increased susceptibility to such infections. Many advocate the use of waterproof ear protectors in such patients when swimming. The choice of a suitable ear protector is complicated as many are now available commercially.

This study was therefore designed to evaluate the degree of protection afforded by seven different ear protectors in a group of six swimmers. A very sensitive, original method of water detection was devised incorporating a pH indicator strip.

The results showed conclusively that cotton wool coated in paraffin jelly BPC was the most effective method of ear protection and was found to be comfortable and easy to use. Other methods, including custom-made silicone rubber plugs, were not adequate in sealing the external auditory canal and are considerably more expensive.

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 103 , Issue 12 , December 1989 , pp. 1154 - 1157
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

El Slimey, O., and Bradley, P. J. (1986). Bacteriological aspects of swimming with grommets. Clinical Otolaryngology, 11: 323–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. W. and Maisel, R. H. (1981). Objective evaluation of earplugs for control of water-borne infection. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 90: 89–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laitakari, K., Martti, S., Parila, T., Lapponen, H. and Helisten, L. (1986). Ear protection against water-borne infection: an objective evaluation. Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 100: 1337–1340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marks, N. J. and Mills, R. P. (1983). Swimming and grommets. Journal of Royal Society of Medicine, 76: 23–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayerhoff, W. L., Monsono, T., Wright, C. G., Shaddock, L. C., Shea, D. A. and Sikora, M. A. (1983). Tympanostomy tubes and otic drops. Laryngoscope, 93: 1022–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penny, P. T. (1983). Swimming pool wheezing. British Medical Journal, 287: 461–462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rycroft, R. J. G. and Penny, P. T. (1983). Dermatoses associated with brominated swimming pools. British Medical Journal, 287: 462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sarnaik, A. P., Vohra, M. P., Sturman, S. W. and Belenky, W. M. (1986). Medical problems of the swimmer. Clinics in Sports Medicine, 5: 47–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Senturia, B. H. (1957). Diseases of the External Ear, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Ilinois.Google Scholar
Smelt, G. J. C. and Monkhouse, W. S. (1985). The effect of bath water, sea water and swimming pool water on the guinea pig middle ear. Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 99: 1209–1216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed