Randomized trial of bulb syringes for earwax: impact on health service utilization.

PURPOSE: Bulb syringes can be used for the self-clearance of earwax and, in the short term, appear effective. We compared the long-term effectiveness of self-irrigation using a bulb syringe with routine care in United Kingdom (UK) family practice clinics where irrigating ears to remove wax is a common procedure. METHODS: We assessed the impact on health service utilization as a follow-up to a single-blind, randomized, controlled trial of 237 patients attending 7 UK family practice clinics with symptomatic, occluding earwax who were randomized to an intervention group (ear drops, bulb syringe, instructions on its use and reuse) or a control group (ear drops, then clinic irrigation). After 2 years, a retrospective notes search for earwax-related consultations was carried out. We used an intention-to-treat analysis to assess differences in dichotomous outcomes between groups. RESULTS: In the 2-year trial follow-up, more control group patients returned with episodes of earwax: 85 of 117 (73%) control vs 70 of 117 (60%) intervention, χ(2)=4.30; P = .038; risk ratio 1.21 (95% CI, 1.01-1.37). The numbers of consultations amounted to 1.15 (control) vs 0.64 (intervention) (incidence rate ratio 1.79; 95% CI, 1.05-3.04, P = .032), ie, a difference of 0.50 consultations, thus saving a consultation on average for every 2 people. CONCLUSION: For patients who have not already tried bulb syringes, self-irrigation using a bulb syringe significantly reduces subsequent demand for ear irrigation by health professionals. Advocating the initial use of bulb syringes could reduce demand for ear irrigation in family practice clinics.

Managing earwax in primary care: efficacy of self-treatment using a bulb syringe.

BACKGROUND: Irrigating ears to remove wax is a time-consuming procedure in UK primary care. In many other countries bulb syringes are used for self-clearance of earwax but evidence of their effectiveness is lacking. AIM: To compare the effectiveness of self-treatment bulb syringes with routine care. DESIGN OF STUDY: Open, randomised, controlled trial. SETTING: Seven practices in Hampshire, UK. METHOD: Participants were 237 patients attending their GP or practice nurse with symptomatic occluding earwax. A further 128 patients did not want to be part of the randomisation but allowed their data to be analysed. Patients randomised to intervention (n = 118) were given ear drops, a bulb syringe, and instructions on its use. Patients in the control group (n = 119) received ear drops, followed by ear irrigation by the GP or practice nurse. Main outcome measures were symptoms (on a 7-point scale), wax clearance, need for further treatment, and the acceptability of treatment. RESULTS: Comparing patients using the bulb syringe with those treated with conventional irrigation, the change in mean symptom score was -0.81 and -1.26 respectively (difference -0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.11 to -0.79) and, regarding the proportion requiring no further irrigation, 51% and 69% respectively. Although irrigation was preferred by more patients, most patients using the bulb syringe would use it again (75% versus 100%) and were satisfied with treatment (71% versus 99%). CONCLUSIONS: Advising patients with ears blocked by wax to try bulb syringing before irrigation is effective and acceptable, and could significantly reduce the use of NHS resources.