Data on the prevalence of otitis media with effusion (OME) as shown by serial tympanometry is presented for young children during the first 5 years of life. The children were participants in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Pregnancy and Childhood (ALSPAC); a randomly selected 10% (n = 1400) of whom were selected for examination at ages 8, 12, 18, 25, 31, 37, 43, 49 and 61 months. Whilst sex had no effect, there was a decrease in prevalence of OME with increasing age. There was a marked seasonal effect on the prevalence of OME. Bilateral and unilateral OME were significantly more prevalent in the winter than in the summer months (36.6% in February in children aged 8 months compared with 16% at 61 months and 16.4% in August in children aged 8 months compared with 3.1% at 61 months). The results form an important background against which to assess both the results of screening and also the indications for surgical treatment.

Conservative treatment for otitis media with effusion (OME) led us to consider the use of hearing aids as a way of managing the associated hearing loss. This study aimed to assess the compliance of patients and acceptance of hearing aids for the management of children with OME.Thirty-nine children who had been given binaural hearing aids to manage OME were assessed at routine follow-up after six months. A clinician who did not prescribe the aid administered a questionnaire to assess compliance, change in symptoms and acceptance of the aids.Thirty-eight parents thought the aids were easy to use and 25 (66 per cent) were completely satisfied with the management. Aided hearing improved by a mean of 17 dB (Range 10–30) over three frequencies, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 Khz and all parents reported subjective hearing improvement in their children. The stigma of an aid was reported as minimal under the age of seven.Hearing aids provide a non-invasive way of managing the problems associated with OME which is acceptable to certain parents and children. Long-term effects of using aids need to be evaluated before they can be recommended.

This study attempts to answer the question of whether there is a 'critical age' after which a second contralateral cochlear implant is less likely to provide enough speech perception to be of practical use. The study was not designed to predict factors that determine successful binaural implant use, but to see if there was evidence to help determine the latest age at which the second ear can usefully be implanted, should the first side fail and become unusable.Outcome data, in the form of speech perception test results, were collected from 11 cochlear implant programmes in the UK and one centre in Australia. Forty-seven congenitally bilaterally deaf subjects who received bilateral sequential implants were recruited to the study. The study also included four subjects with congenital unilateral profound deafness who had lost all hearing in their only hearing ear and received a cochlear implant in their unilaterally congenitally deaf ear. Of those 34 subjects for whom complete sets of data were available, the majority (72%) of those receiving their second (or unilateral) implant up to the age of 13 years scored 60 per cent or above in the Bamford Kowal Bench (BKB) sentence test, or equivalent. In contrast, of those nine receiving their second or unilateral implant at the age of 15 or above, none achieved adequate levels of speech perception on formal testing: two scored 29 per cent and 30 per cent, respectively, and the rest seven per cent or less.A discriminant function analysis performed on the data suggests that it is unlikely that a second contralateral implant received after the age of 16 to 18 years will, on its own, provide adequate levels of speech perception. As more children receive sequential bilateral cochlear implants and the pool of data enlarges the situation is likely to become clearer.The results provide support for the concept of a 'critical age' for implanting the second ear in successful congenitally deaf unilateral cochlear implant users. This would argue against 'preserving' the second ear beyond a certain age, in order to use newer models of cochlear implant or for the purpose of hair cell regeneration and similar procedures in the future. The results suggest a new and more absolute reason for bilateral implantation of congenitally deaf children at an early age.

Currently available evidence is compatible with favourable outcomes from CI in children with ANSD. However, this evidence is weak. Stronger evidence is needed to support cost-effective clinical policy and practice in this area.