Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol.  2021 May;14(2):235-239. 10.21053/ceo.2020.00850.

Earmold Foreign Bodies in the Middle Ear Necessitating Surgical Removal: Why Otology Specialists Should Screen Candidates for Hearing Aids

• Cho SD
• Jang JH
• Kim H
• Cho YS
• Kim Y
• Koo JW
• Song JJ

• KMID: 2515437
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.21053/ceo.2020.00850

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Summary of cases 1 and 2. (A-F) Case 1. (A) An endoscopic view revealed earmold impression material filling the middle ear. (B) After transcanal visualization of the middle ear, (C) the foreign body was removed via the retroauricular approach. (D) The silicone material extended to the Eustachian tube and the round window niche. Preoperative (E) and postoperative 3-month (F) pure-tone audiometry data. (G-L) Case 2. (G) An endoscopic examination revealed a pseudomembrane external to the earmold impression material located in the middle ear. (H) The foreign body in the middle ear and mastoid antrum was removed via a combined transcanal-transmastoid approach. (I) The silicone material was totally removed. (J) The silicone material extended to the Eustachian tube on a coronal computed tomography scan. Preoperative (K) and postoperative 5-month (L) pure-tone audiometry (PTA) data.

• 

  Fig. 2. Summary of cases 3 and 4. (A-F) Case 3. (A) Earmold impression material filling the middle ear can be seen through the perforated tympanic membrane. (B, C) The foreign body was removed en bloc via a combined transcanal-transmastoid approach. (D) Silicone material (yellow arrow) in the middle ear. Preoperative (E) and postoperative 3-month (F) pure-tone audiometry data. (G-L) Case 4. (G) Earmold impression material filling the middle ear can be seen through the perforated tympanic membrane. (H, I) The foreign body was removed en bloc via a combined transcanal-transmastoid approach. (J) The silicone material in the middle ear extended to the Eustachian tube on a coronal computed tomography scan. Preoperative (K) and postoperative 2-year (L) pure-tone audiometry data.

Reference

1. Shim YJ, Bae YJ, An GS, Lee K, Kim Y, Lee SY, et al. Involvement of the internal auditory canal in subjects with cochlear otosclerosis: a less acknowledged third window that affects surgical outcome. Otol Neurotol. 2019; Mar. 40(3):e186–90.

2. Lee SY, Song SK, Park SJ, Park HG, Choi BY, Koo JW, et al. Jugular bulb resurfacing with bone cement for patients with high dehiscent jugular bulb and ipsilateral pulsatile tinnitus. Otol Neurotol. 2019; Feb. 40(2):192–9.

3. Han SA, Choe G, Kim Y, Koo JW, Choi BY, Song JJ. Beware of a fragile footplate: lessons from ossiculoplasty in patients with ossicular anomalies related to second pharyngeal arch defects. J Clin Med. 2019; Dec. 8(12):2130.

4. Han JJ, Ridder D, Vanneste S, Chen YC, Koo JW, Song JJ. Pre-treatment ongoing cortical oscillatory activity predicts improvement of tinnitus after partial peripheral reafferentation with hearing aids. Front Neurosci. 2020; May. 14:410.

5. Huh G, Bae YJ, Woo HJ, Park JH, Koo JW, Song JJ. Vestibulocochlear symptoms caused by vertebrobasilar dolichoectasia. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2020; May. 13(2):123–32.

6. Verdam F, Tange R, Thomeer H. Impression material in the external and middle ear: an overview of the literature and a stepwise approach for removal. J Int Adv Otol. 2016; Dec. 12(3):345–52.

7. Meyers JA, Ardeshirpour F, Hilton CW, Levine SC. Complication from hearing aid mold material: a case report and review of legal matters. Am J Otolaryngol. 2013; Nov-Dec. 34(6):739–42.

8. Sugiuchi T, Kodera K, Zusho H, Asano Y, Kanesada K, Hayashida M, et al. Complications resulting from taking ear impressions. Nihon Jibiinkoka Gakkai Kaiho. 2015; Aug. 118(8):1058–67.

9. Lee HM, Yi KI, Jung JH, Lee IW. Hearing aid silicone impression material as a foreign body in the middle ear. Am J Otolaryngol. 2017; Jan-Feb. 38(1):108–11.

10. Lee DH, Cho HH. Otologic complications caused by hearing aid mold impression material. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2012; Aug. 39(4):411–4.