Two-Year Outcomes After Pediatric In-Office Tympanostomy Using Lidocaine/Epinephrine Iontophoresis and an Automated Tube Delivery System.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate 2-year outcomes after lidocaine/epinephrine iontophoresis and tympanostomy using an automated tube delivery system for pediatric tube placement in-office. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, single-arm. SETTING: Eighteen otolaryngology practices. METHODS: Children age 6 months to 12 years indicated for tympanostomy were enrolled between October 2017 and February 2019. Local anesthesia of the tympanic membrane was achieved via lidocaine/epinephrine iontophoresis and tympanostomy was completed using an automated tube delivery system (the Tula® System). An additional Lead-In cohort of patients underwent tube placement in the operating room (OR) under general anesthesia using only the tube delivery system. Patients were followed for 2 years or until tube extrusion, whichever occurred first. Otoscopy and tympanometry were performed at 3 weeks, and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Tube retention, patency, and safety were evaluated. RESULTS: Tubes were placed in-office for 269 patients (449 ears) and in the OR for 68 patients (131 ears) (mean age, 4.5 years). The median and mean times to tube extrusion for the combined OR and In-Office cohorts were 15.82 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.41-19.05) and 16.79 (95% CI: 16.16-17.42) months, respectively. Sequelae included ongoing perforation for 1.9% of ears (11/580) and medial tube displacement for 0.2% (1/580) observed at 18 months. Over a mean follow-up of 14.3 months, 30.3% (176/580) of ears had otorrhea and 14.3% (83/580) had occluded tubes. CONCLUSION: In-office pediatric tympanostomy using lidocaine/epinephrine iontophoresis and automated tube delivery results in tube retention within the ranges described for similar grommet-type tubes and complication rates consistent with traditional tube placement in the OR.

In-Office Tympanostomy Tube Placement Using Iontophoresis and Automated Tube Delivery Systems.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To evaluate safety, tolerability, and technical success of lidocaine iontophoresis and a tympanostomy tube placement system for adults in an office setting and (2) to meet regulatory evidence requirements for new drugs and devices. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, single arm. SETTING: Patients were recruited in 8 community-based practices in the United States between June and September 2017. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This study evaluated tympanic membrane anesthesia and tube placement in 30 adults. Anesthesia was achieved via iontophoresis of a lidocaine/epinephrine solution. Tube placement was conducted using an integrated myringotomy and tube delivery system. Tolerability of tube placement was measured using a patient-reported visual analog scale from 0 mm (no pain) to 100 mm (worst possible pain). Mean pain score was compared to a performance goal of 45 mm, where statistical superiority represents mild pain or less. Technical success and safety through 3 weeks postprocedure were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-nine (29/30, 96.7%) patients had tube(s) successfully placed in all indicated ears. One patient demonstrated inadequate tympanic membrane anesthesia, and no tube placement was attempted. The mean (SD) pain score of 9.4 (15.7) mm was statistically superior to the performance goal. There were no serious adverse events. Seven nonserious events were related to device, procedure, or drug: inadequate anesthesia (1), vertigo (1), and dizziness (1) at the time of procedure and ear discomfort (1), tube occlusion (2), and medial tube migration (1) postprocedure. CONCLUSION: Lidocaine iontophoresis provides acceptable tympanic membrane anesthesia for safe, tolerable, and successful in-office tube placement using an integrated myringotomy and tube delivery system.

In-Office Tympanostomy Tube Placement in Children Using Iontophoresis and Automated Tube Delivery.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Evaluate technical success, tolerability, and safety of lidocaine iontophoresis and tympanostomy tube placement for children in an office setting. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective individual cohort study. METHODS: This prospective multicenter study evaluated in-office tube placement in children ages 6 months through 12 years of age. Anesthesia was achieved via lidocaine/epinephrine iontophoresis. Tube placement was conducted using an integrated and automated myringotomy and tube delivery system. Anxiolytics, sedation, and papoose board were not used. Technical success and safety were evaluated. Patients 5 to 12 years old self-reported tube placement pain using the Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R) instrument, which ranges from 0 (no pain) to 10 (very much pain). RESULTS: Children were enrolled into three cohorts with 68, 47, and 222 children in the Operating Room (OR) Lead-In, Office Lead-In, and Pivotal cohorts, respectively. In the Pivotal cohort, there were 120 and 102 children in the <5 and 5- to 12-year-old age groups, respectively, with a mean age of 2.3 and 7.6 years, respectively. Bilateral tube placement was indicated for 94.2% of children <5 and 88.2% of children 5 to 12 years old. Tubes were successfully placed in all indicated ears in 85.8% (103/120) of children <5 and 89.2% (91/102) of children 5 to 12 years old. Mean FPS-R score was 3.30 (standard deviation [SD] = 3.39) for tube placement and 1.69 (SD = 2.43) at 5 minutes postprocedure. There were no serious adverse events. Nonserious adverse events occurred at rates similar to standard tympanostomy procedures. CONCLUSIONS: In-office tube placement in selected patients can be successfully achieved without requiring sedatives, anxiolytics, or papoose restraints via lidocaine iontophoresis local anesthesia and an automated myringotomy and tube delivery system. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b Laryngoscope, 130:S1-S9, 2020.

Tympanostomy tube placement in awake, unrestrained pediatric patients: A prospective, multicenter study.

OBJECTIVES: Tympanostomy tube (tube) placement is the most common pediatric otolaryngologic surgery in the United States. Most surgeries are performed in an operating-room setting under general anesthesia due to the lack of tolerable and reliable local anesthesia methods suitable for pediatric patients, and concerns regarding myringotomy procedures in a mobile child. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of an iontophoresis system (IPS) to achieve local anesthesia in combination with a tube delivery system (TDS) for tube placement in pediatric patients in an office setting. METHODS: A prospective, single-arm study was conducted at 9 otolaryngology sites in the United States. Participants included pediatric patients aged 6 months to less than 22 years requiring tube placement. Patients were prepared for the procedure using behavioral support techniques and tube placement was attempted under local anesthesia using the IPS in conjunction with the TDS. No physical restraints were allowed and no anxiolytics, analgesics, or sedatives were permitted. Safety was assessed through the occurrence of adverse events and success rates for tube placement under local anesthesia were determined. Tolerability of the procedure was evaluated using the 5-point Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale and parental satisfaction was assessed using a postoperative survey. RESULTS: Seventy patients (127 ears) were enrolled in the study [mean (SD) age=7.0 (3.9) years]. No serious adverse events occurred in the 70 enrolled patients. Tube placement using the TDS was successful in 96.6% (114/118) of attempted ears. A single TDS was required in 105 ears, while more than 1 device was required in 9 ears. Of the 70 patients enrolled in study, 63 (90.0%) successfully received tubes in all indicated ears during their in-office visit. The mean (SD) change in pain score from pre-anesthesia to post-surgery was +0.9 (1.8). Favorable ratings for overall satisfaction with the in-office procedure were obtained from 96.9% (63/65) of respondents. Tube retention at 2 weeks was 99.1%. As only 15 patients were enrolled who were 3 years old or younger, the ability to generalize these results to younger patients is limited. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, use of the IPS and TDS technologies enabled safe, reliable, and tolerable placement of tubes in awake, unrestrained pediatric patients.

Steroid-eluting sinus implant for in-office treatment of recurrent nasal polyposis: a prospective, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for chronic rhinosinusitis with recurrent polyposis (CRSwNP) after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) are limited, and include frequent use of systemic steroids and revision surgery. A bioabsorbable, steroid-eluting implant was studied for its ability to dilate sinuses obstructed by polyps and provide localized, controlled steroid delivery to reestablish sinus patency. This study assessed the initial feasibility, safety, and efficacy of steroid-eluting implants placed in the office setting in patients who were candidates for revision ESS. METHODS: Prospective, multicenter study enrolling 12 patients who had prior ESS but experienced recurrent polyposis refractory to medical therapy. Implants were placed bilaterally under topical anesthesia in-office. Follow-up through 6 months included endoscopic grading, patient-reported outcomes (22-item Sino-Nasal Outcomes Test [SNOT-22]) and need for revision ESS. RESULTS: Implants were successfully inserted in 21 of 24 (88%) ethmoid sinuses, resulting in 11 evaluable patients. No serious adverse events occurred. Within 1 month, mean bilateral polyp grade was reduced from 4.5 at baseline to 2.3 (p = 0.008) and sustained through 6 months (2.33; p = 0.008). Mean SNOT-22 score was significantly improved from 2.19 at baseline to 0.90 within 1 month (p = 0.001) and sustained to 6 months (1.03; p = 0.012). Sixty-four percent of patients were no longer revision ESS candidates at 6 months. CONCLUSION: The study provided initial clinical evidence of the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of in-office steroid-eluting implant placement in CRS patients with recurrent polyposis after ESS. Although further studies are needed, the results suggest this therapy may provide a safe and effective, office-based option for the treatment of obstructive polyposis.

Advance II: a prospective, randomized study assessing safety and efficacy of bioabsorbable steroid-releasing sinus implants.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) may be compromised by postoperative inflammation, polyposis, and adhesions, often requiring subsequent intervention. To address this issue, the authors investigated the safety and effectiveness of controlled delivery of mometasone furoate to the sinus mucosa via bioabsorbable implants deployed at the time of ESS. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled, double-blind trial using an intrapatient control design. SETTING: Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery centers; both academic and private practices. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The study enrolled 105 patients with CRS undergoing bilateral ethmoidectomy to compare the effect of drug-releasing to non-drug-releasing implants using an intrapatient control design. Postoperative interventions, polyposis, and adhesions were assessed postoperatively. Efficacy was determined through independent analysis of randomized video-endoscopies by 3 blinded sinus surgeons. Safety assessments included ocular examinations. RESULTS: Implants were successfully deployed in all 210 ethmoid sinuses. Compared with control sinuses with non-drug-releasing implants, the drug-releasing implant provided a 29.0% relative reduction in postoperative interventions (P = .028) and a 52% (P = .005) decrease in lysis of adhesions. The relative reduction in frank polyposis was 44.9% (P = .002). Similar reductions were observed in real-time grading performed by the clinical investigators. No clinically significant changes from baseline in intraocular pressure or cataracts were observed. CONCLUSION: This study provides a high level of evidence that use of steroid-releasing implants that apply a sustained release of corticosteroid improves surgical outcomes by reducing synechiae formation, polyposis, and the need for postoperative interventions, with no observable ocular safety risk.