Letters to the Editor
Removal of Cerumen from Ear Canal Using Lighted Curettes
TO THE EDITOR: I would like to add a recommendation for cerumen removal to those made by the authors of "Cerumen Impaction" in the May 15, 2007, issue of American Family Physician.1 A common technique used by physicians to remove cerumen from the ear canal is to look with an otoscope, "memorize" the position of the cerumen (or an opening in the impaction through which one might insert an ear loop or spoon to get behind the impaction), put down the otoscope, and then insert the instrument blindly, based on the "mental picture." This can lead to inaccurate placement of the instrument, trauma to the sensitive and fragile ear canal skin, bleeding, pain, and an upset patient. A common error is not inserting the instrument deeply enough, for fear of damaging the tympanic membrane. The problem is that the physician does not have enough hands to retract the pinna, hold a light source, and use an instrument. I found that trying to open the window of the otoscope and manipulating the instrument through it under direct vision is awkward and does not work well for me.
However, I found a solution that does work very well. Lighted curettes, which are plastic, disposable ear spoons/loops that attach to a light source and transmit light through the instrument allow retraction with one hand and manipulation of the instrument with the other hand. A magnification lens fits on the light source, though I have found it is not necessary. The light is more than sufficient to allow me to clearly see the impaction and for accurate placement of the instrument, increasing the safety, effectiveness, and comfort of the procedure. Also, it often eliminates the need for an unnecessary and time-consuming irrigation (if the wax is hard and dry and adherent to the ear canal skin, presoaking with a cerumen softener can still be helpful). These lighted curettes are really a pleasure to use. The system is inexpensive, costing approximately $80.
I imagine that using standard steel instruments with an old-fashioned fenestrated head mirror, with a goose-neck lamp on the opposite side of the patient, would also work. I did not try that because the lighted loops worked so well.
Author disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
REFERENCES
1. McCarter DF, Courtney AU, Pollart SM. Cerumen impaction. Am Fam Physician 2007;75:1523-8.
Is Weight Loss Sustainable with a Low-Carbohydrate Diet?
TO THE EDITOR: In the article "Low-Carbohydrate Diets," Drs. Last and Wilson reviewed the existing state of knowledge on this subject.1 They seemingly suggest that weight loss is not sustainable with a low-carbohydrate diet and that caloric count, rather than nutrient restriction, is the key to effective weight loss. Indeed, persons need to have a lower caloric intake than output to lose weight, but consideration of macronutrients cannot be ignored.
One study examined the long-term stability of weight loss in 16 patients who were maintained on a low-carbohydrate diet.2 At six months, there was a decrease in mean body weight from 221.8 ± 32.4 lb (100.6 ± 14.7 kg) to 196.7 ± 31.5 lb (89.2 ± 14.3 kg); most of this weight loss persisted after 22 months.2 Although this is a small sample, it highlights the need to further explore the long-term use of low-carbohydrate diets.
There is ample evidence from three decades of literature demonstrating the potential benefits of low-carbohydrate diets over and above caloric restrictions.3-5 A meta-analysis of 87 studies of various weight-loss diets found that after controlling for energy intake (comparing diets with equal caloric content), the diets that obtained less than 41.4 percent of calories from carbohydrates were associated with more weight loss than diets that obtained a higher percentage of calories from carbohydrates. The conclusion was that low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets affect weight loss independent of energy intake.6
Pending further studies, physicians should continue to have an open mind about whether low-carbohydrate diets lead to sustainable weight loss and whether this weight loss exceeds that expected solely from caloric restriction.
Author disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
REFERENCES
1. Last AR, Wilson SA. Low-carbohydrate diets. Am Fam Physician 2006; 73:1942-8.
2. Nielsen JV, Joensson E. Low-carbohydrate diet in type 2 diabetes. Stable improvement of bodyweight and glycemic control during 22 months follow-up. Nutr Metab (Lond) 2006;3:22.
3. Manninen AH. Metabolic advantage of low-carbohydrate diets: a calorie is still not a calorie. Am J Clin Nutr 2006;83:1442-3.
4. Young CM, Scanlan SS, Im HS, Lutwak L. Effect of body composition and other parameters in obese young men of carbohydrate level of reduction diet. Am J Clin Nutr 1971;24:290-6.
5. Seshadri P, Iqbal N. Low carbohydrate diets for weight loss: historical & environmental perspective. Indian J Med Res 2006;123:739-47.
6. Krieger JW, Sitren HS, Daniels MJ, Langkamp-Henken B. Effects of variation in protein and carbohydrate intake on body mass and composition during energy restriction: a meta-regression 1. Am J Clin Nutr 2006;83:260-74.
in reply: We agree with Dr. Standard-Goldson's contention that physicians should have an open mind with regard to the long-term benefits of low-carbohydrate diets on weight loss. Low-carbohydrate diets appear to be safe and to result in weight loss and an improved metabolic profile. In persons with high insulin levels, low-glycemic index diets are more effective than low-fat diets for attaining weight loss and fat loss and, regardless of insulin status, more effectively increase high-density lipoprotein levels and decrease triglycerides.1
Still, low-glycemic index diets are not strictly the same as low-carbohydrate diets. Even though there has been no conclusive evidence that long-term use of low-carbohydrate diets leads to a greater sustained weight loss than other, similarly low-calorie diets, an extension of the hormonal findings of the 2007 study discussed above could readily be made.1
The study Dr. Standard-Goldson cites to support the effectiveness of low-carbohydrate diets over 22 months is not a comparison study; it is a report of a cohort of 16 patients on a low-carbohydrate diet and cannot establish supremacy of one diet over any other.2 This lack of evidence for a long-term advantage of low-carbohydrate diets over other diets neither supports nor refutes the possibility of long-term benefit. It is simply unproved either way.
We disagree with Dr. Standard-Goldson's proposition that low-carbohydrate diets have been demonstrated to induce a metabolic advantage. The meta-analysis cited does not prove that low-carbohydrate diets induce any real metabolic advantage.3 Patients consuming a low-carbohydrate diet did have a greater decrease in fat-free mass than those consuming more carbohydrates. Unfortunately, no studies continuing beyond 26 weeks were included. Additionally, studies were excluded if the patients were not hypocaloric, the very group that would be most helpful in proving a metabolic advantage. If weight loss was induced in patients consuming a low-carbohydrate and high- or normal-caloric diet, then the proposed metabolic benefits might actually be demonstrated. The discussion section of that article addresses the possibility that increased water loss from ketosis could account for any differences in weight loss. As such, it is still unproven conjecture that low-carbohydrate or low-glycemic index diets can in some way induce a greater weight loss than that expected from caloric restriction and/or water loss.
Until more is known about the physiologic effects of various diets and the physiology of the dieter, diets should be primarily hypocaloric and linked to the patient's medical condition (e.g., insulin resistance) and dietary preferences (e.g., low-carbohydrate, lower-carbohydrate, low-fat, balanced). Ultimately, the most successful weight-reducing diet will be the one that patients can adhere to for the longest duration.
Author disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
REFERENCES
1. Ebbeling CB, Leidig MM, Feldman HA, Lovesky MM, Ludwig DS. Effects of a low-glycemic load vs low-fat diet in obese young adults: a randomized trial. JAMA 2007;297:2092-102.
2. Nielsen JV, Joensson E. Low-carbohydrate diet in type 2 diabetes. Stable improvement of bodyweight and glycemic control during 22 months follow-up. Nutr Metab (Lond) 2006;3:22.
3. Krieger JW, Sitren HS, Daniels MJ, Langkamp-Henken B. Effects of variation in protein and carbohydrate intake on body mass and composition during energy restriction: a meta-regression 1. Am J Clin Nutr 2006;83:260-74.
Send letters to Kenny Lin, MD, Assistant Editor, American Family Physician, e-mail: afplet@aafp.org. Letters submitted via regular mail should be sent to: 11400 Tomahawk Creek Pkwy., Leawood, KS 66211-6272.
Please include your complete address, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address. Letters should be fewer than 500 words and limited to one table or figure and six references (including citation of original article). Please submit a word count.
Letters submitted for publication in AFP must not be submitted to any other publication. Possible conflicts of interest must be disclosed at time of submission. Submission of a letter will be construed as granting the American Academy of Family Physicians permission to publish the letter in any of its publications in any form. Letters will be edited to meet style and space requirements.
| Copyright © 2007 by the American
Academy of Family Physicians. |
