» Articles » PMID: 38566713

Comparison of Video Nasopharyngoscopy and Tympanometry in Suspected Eustachian Tube Dysfunction - A Prospective Study

Overview
Publisher Springer
Date 2024 Apr 3
PMID 38566713
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective Tympanometry is widely used for diagnosing Eustachian tube dysfunction (ETD). However, in clinical practice, it is not uncommon to come across patients with symptoms of ETD with a normal tympanogram. Dynamic slow motion video endoscopy (DSMVE) of Eustachian tube (ET) and Eustachian tube dysfunction questionnaire-7 (ETDQ-7) are other tools to diagnose ETD. Primary aim of the study was to compare DSMVE and tympanometry in diagnosing ETD. Secondary objective was to find an association between DSMVE and ETDQ-7. It was a prospective diagnostic validity study in the department of Otorhinolaryngology at a tertiary care centre. Patients with symptoms suggestive of ETD with intact tympanic membrane (TM) and aged above 12 years were evaluated. The study duration was 17 months. The parameters assessed were tympanic membrane(TM) retraction by otoscopy, DSMVE, tympanometry and ETDQ-7 questionnaire. To test the significance of association and difference between tympanogram and nasopharyngoscopy, Chi-Square t test and McNemar's tests were applied. Out of 107 ears, DSMVE, tympanometry, ETDQ- 7 and otoscopy detected ETD in 51, 31,70 and 57 ears respectively. DSMVE and tympanometry together detected ETD in 29 ears and did not detect in 54 ears. Both these diagnostic methods were not comparable statistically (moderate agreement- Kappa value- 0.542). Comparison of DSMVE with ETDQ-7 was statistically significant (-value- 0.004). Video nasopharyngoscopy cannot be a stand- alone diagnostic aid for ETD. ETDQ-7 questionnaire showed higher concordance with nasopharyngoscopy than tympanometry. Diagnostic accuracy was more when all four parameters were assessed together.

Citing Articles

Comparative Efficacy of Different Therapeutic Interventions in Eustachian Tube Dysfunctions: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

Alshehri S, Musleh A Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(12).

PMID: 38928645 PMC: 11203019. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14121229.

References
1.
HOLMQUIST J, Renvall U, Svendsen P . Eustachian tube function and retraction of the tympanic membrane. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1980; 89(3 Pt 2):65-6. DOI: 10.1177/00034894800890s318. View

2.
Canali I, Rosito L, Siliprandi B, Giugno C, Costa S . Assessment of Eustachian tube function in patients with tympanic membrane retraction and in normal subjects. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2016; 83(1):50-58. PMC: 9444767. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2016.01.010. View

3.
Moon S, Lee Y, Jung J, Moon I, Bae S . Association Between Eustachian Tube Dysfunction Questionnaire-7 Scores and Eustachian Tube Function Test Results in Symptomatic Patients With a Normal Drum. J Audiol Otol. 2022; 26(3):142-146. PMC: 9271737. DOI: 10.7874/jao.2021.00654. View

4.
Han W, Yoo J, Rah Y, Chang J, Im G, Song J . Analysis of Eustachian Tube Dysfunction by Dynamic Slow Motion Video Endoscopy and Eustachian Tube Dysfunction Questionnaire in Chronic Otitis Media. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2017; 10(4):315-320. PMC: 5678035. DOI: 10.21053/ceo.2016.01683. View

5.
Chauhan B, Chauhan K . A comparative study of eustachian tube functions in normal and diseased ears with tympanometry and videonasopharyngoscopy. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014; 65(Suppl 3):468-76. PMC: 3889352. DOI: 10.1007/s12070-011-0312-9. View