DS has possible ear infection. WWYD?

[dutchgirl678]

I just got a text from daycare. DS has been cranky all day, has a low-grade fever (99.5) and they say he is tugging at his ear. I told them to give him Tylenol to ease the pain and I will take him to the dr. later if it's needed.

Would you take your kid to the dr. at the first sign of an ear infection? I want to do what is right for him, obviously (he's 18 months) but I also am of the opinion that often times people go to the dr needlessly and antibiotics are prescribed too often.

[Ashley&Scott]

I would take him in. Ear infections suck, M is on his 3rd one in 4 months.

[8675309]

Nov 2, 2012 17:08:08 GMT -5 Ashley&Scott said:

I would take him in. Ear infections suck, M is on his 3rd one in 4 months.

Have you been to an ENT doc? That is a lot of ear infections. Not sure how early you can get tubes but your little guy might be a good candidate for them. Ear Infections are the worst and tubes have been a miracle for us.

ETA: OP, I would take him in. Worse case scenario is he has an infection but meds will knock it out.

[h]

I would take him so that you can confirm that is what it is and have a record of it. That way if he gets several ear infections in the next few months, your doctor will be aware of it and you can think about tubes, etc. You might also be able to get the pain relieving drops. You can always decline antibiotics, though it seems like many doctors are less apt to prescribe them for ear infections these days anyway given questions about the efficacy.

[dutchgirl678]

ok thanks. This would be the third this year. He had two in the spring back to back but hasn't had any all summer. I'll see if I can take him to an urgent care after work today.

[Ashley&Scott]

Nov 2, 2012 17:10:44 GMT -5 8675309 said:

Nov 2, 2012 17:08:08 GMT -5 Ashley&Scott said:

I would take him in. Ear infections suck, M is on his 3rd one in 4 months.

Have you been to an ENT doc? That is a lot of ear infections. Not sure how early you can get tubes but your little guy might be a good candidate for them. Ear Infections are the worst and tubes have been a miracle for us.

I am going to ask about this. My mom keeps saying "I hope he doesn't need tubes". I don't understand why though, if they'll help him feel better I'm all for them.

How old was your LO when they did the tubes?

[h]

We did tubes at 12 months with DS1, and it was the best decision ever.

I had repeated ear infections as a child and did not get tubes (I am old, and they weren't done much when I was little). I was on antibiotics so often that I finally developed a terrible allergic reaction and wound up in the ER and missing three weeks of school. I now can't take most common antibiotics and have spent the last 25 years toughing out any number of bacterial infections as result. I would far, far prefer tubes than over-exposure to antibiotics for my kids.

[dutchgirl678]

DD has had very few ear infections but we found out last year that she had trouble hearing us sometimes. We've had three hearing tests and now the ENT has decided that she needs tubes and it will help drain the fluid behind her ear drums. She'll hopefully get them this month or next.

I agree that tubes would be much better than too many antibiotics even though the initial procedure seems more daunting. But the younger the kid is, the easier it will be on them.

[dragonfly08]

I personally follow the new AAP guidelines and watch without treatment for 48-72 hours unless there's fever and/or severe discomfort. But my kids are older - 6 and 9 - and don't have a history of ear infections to worry about. At 18 months, I'd be a lot more likely to have my child seen by the ped because s/he couldn't tell me how bad the pain was plus I'd be concerned about recurring infections. With my own kids, at this point I know that's not an issue.

[Deleted]

I did a lot of reading this week, and the recommendation to watch and wait is for kids over 2; for the little guys, they still do antibiotics.

DS has an amoxicillan resistant ear infection, so we're on day 3/10 of antibiotic #2. I hate it.

[h]

Nov 2, 2012 17:33:20 GMT -5 dutchgirl678 said:

I agree that tubes would be much better than too many antibiotics even though the initial procedure seems more daunting. But the younger the kid is, the easier it will be on them.

I think any surgical procedure on your child seems daunting when you are a parent, but getting tubes put in really is no big deal most of the time. It took no time at all, and DS was awake almost immediately, we left the surgical center an hour later, and he was acting totally normal by the time we got home. We got to the surgical center at like 7am and by noon you would have had no idea that he had had any sort of a procedure that morning.

[geneg]

99.5F isn't a fever. A fever is 100.4F or higher. The AAP recommends watch and wait for ear infections in kids over two months because some infections are viral and therefore not susceptible to antibiotics. And even bacterial infections can resolve on their own. Plus, even if the antibiotics do something, it doesn't treat the pain for the first 24-48 hours. In Europe, it is often watch and wait after one year. I didn't treat my kids' (rare) ear infections after they were over 12 months.

[dutchgirl678]

hens, thanks for your info on the procedure for tubes. That makes me feel a little bit better about scheduling for our DD. DS is home now. They gave him some Tylenol at daycare but he seems fine now, no temperature, no crying or fussing. My DCP tends to be a little over-zealous sometimes and I have to remind her that she is not a medical professional. But if he shows any sign of discomfort I'll definitely get him seen.

[Deleted]

Nov 2, 2012 18:45:45 GMT -5 geneg said:

The AAP recommends watch and wait for ear infections in kids over two months because some infections are viral and therefore not susceptible to antibiotics.

No they don't.
pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/5/1451/T4.expansion.html

Under 6 months = treat immediately
Under 2 years = treat if severe (or if relapse within 30 days), wait if it seems mild
Over 2 years = treat pain and give it 2-3 days.

[geneg]

Nov 2, 2012 19:47:29 GMT -5 @tokenhoser said:

Nov 2, 2012 18:45:45 GMT -5 geneg said:

The AAP recommends watch and wait for ear infections in kids over two months because some infections are viral and therefore not susceptible to antibiotics.

No they don't.
pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/5/1451/T4.expansion.html

Under 6 months = treat immediately
Under 2 years = treat if severe (or if relapse within 30 days), wait if it seems mild
Over 2 years = treat pain and give it 2-3 days.

Pardon my typo. I meant two years, not two months.

[Ashley&Scott]

Thanks for the info. I haven't talked to the pedi yet but I think M is on the path to tubes. I really like hearing positive stories about them, the research I've been doing seems very positive as well.

Dutchgirl- sorry for the highjack. I'm glad your DS is feeling better. Good luck to your DD!

[dutchgirl678]

Ashley, no problem . DS came home and seemed fine. He ate a normal dinner and went to bed without a fuss. So we'll see how he does tomorrow.