leaving ear tubes in for 3+ years

My son had ear tubes put in when he was 18 months due to chronic ear
infections. Since then he's had none. He is will be 5 in May. The
tubes have been in for 3 years 4 months. After a recent visit to his
ENT, the doctor says his ears look great, and he also passed a hearing
test. The doc said leave the tubes in. There is no reason to take them
out now.
However my pediatrician and another ENT I talked to seem to disagree.
They think the tubes should be taken out. We have an appt to see
another ENT for a second opinion next week. I know if you leave them
in too long, they might leave a hole in the eardrum. On the other hand
if they are taken out, ear infections could re-occur which means the
possibility of putting new tubes in again.
Can anyone share their thoughts/experiences?

On Mar 10, 11:21 am, "Mikepier" wrote:
My son had ear tubes put in when he was 18 months due to chronic ear
infections. Since then he's had none. He is will be 5 in May. The
tubes have been in for 3 years 4 months. After a recent visit to his
ENT, the doctor says his ears look great, and he also passed a hearing
test. The doc said leave the tubes in. There is no reason to take them
out now.
However my pediatrician and another ENT I talked to seem to disagree.
They think the tubes should be taken out. We have an appt to see
another ENT for a second opinion next week. I know if you leave them
in too long, they might leave a hole in the eardrum. On the other hand
if they are taken out, ear infections could re-occur which means the
possibility of putting new tubes in again.
Can anyone share their thoughts/experiences?

Here is one article that isn't directly what you asked about, but
maybe of interest to you. Enjoy your day.

Roman

"Need For Ear Tubes Questioned", CBS News, August 11, 2005,
Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in770246.shtml

When kids get inner ear infections, doctors often put drainage tubes
in their ears right away. The idea is to prevent hearing loss, which
could lead to developmental problems.

But, reports The Early Show medical correspondent Dr. Emily Senay, a
new study argues there's no need for that rush treatment.

Each year, hundreds of thousands of young children get those
infections, Senay explains. In fact, otitis media, which is the
medical term for inflammation in the middle ear (commonly referred to
as an inner ear infection), is the most commonly diagnosed illness in
children, after colds.

And youngsters who have recurring inner ear problems frequently have
ear tubes inserted.

They are tiny plastic tubes shaped like a hollow spool, and are
commonly used to relieve the symptoms of persistent middle ear
effusion, which is essentially fluid in the inner ear, and to prevent
future ear infections.

The tubes are inserted through a small hole in the eardrum while the
child is under general anesthesia. The procedure has become one of the
most commonly performed operations of any kind.

Once inserted, they relieve some of the symptoms of inner ear
infections by enabling air to enter the middle ear and fluid to flow
out.

If an ear infection is affecting a child's hearing, which often
happens, ear tubes can restore hearing and prevent future buildup of
fluid in the middle ear.

If a child complains of pain in the ears, the tubes can decrease that
feeling of pressure in the ears, therefore decreasing pain.

Doctors were long under the impression that getting ear tubes for a
child at the first sign of infection would actually help head off
developmental problems, or keep them from getting worse. But this
study disputes that.

When a child has fluid in the middle ear, it reduces the ear's ability
to conduct sound, because the eardrum and middle ear bones can't
vibrate as they should, so sounds seem muffled. And the belief was
that speech problems and developmental delays were a direct result of
the temporary hearing loss from inner ear infections, so parents and
doctors were inserting ear tubes in children at the first sign of
trouble.

But in this new study out of the University of Pittsburgh, researchers
closely followed more than 400 infants who had middle ear fluid for at
least three months. The infants were either treated with tubes
immediately or followed for up to nine months before tubes were
inserted, if the problem persisted. The researchers then gave the two
groups of children a series of tests at the age of three to see if the
timing of when the ear tube was inserted had any effect on their
developmental skills.

After looking at the test results, they found that there were no
significant differences between the early-treatment group and the late-
treatment group.

So the bottom-line? Getting ear tubes inserted at the first sign of an
inner ear infection doesn't improve developmental outcomes of
children.

As common as the procedure is, the researchers say doctors can now
take a more conservative approach when treating children with the
infections, knowing that the insertion of the tubes is unlikely to
affect their developmental skills. There's always a risk when putting
young children under general anesthesia for surgery.

The team will continue to follow these children. Senay says she thinks
they'll conduct another round of tests when they reach age six, and
again when they're eight or nine, to see if the timing of the
insertion of the tubes seems to affect their skills later in life.

Doctors suggest that if a child has at least three inner ear
infections in six months or four infections in a year, he or she may
be a good candidate for the tubes. Otherwise, antibiotics such as
amoxicillin have proven effective in treating inner ear infections.