View report page

351
scrutiny of the figures might give an observer a false impression
of the results of ionization. This impression would be specially
likely to occur in a casual observation of Table XXI., where a
dwindling percentage of "dry"cases is recorded as time passes.
Leaving out. the fact that the numbers upon which the percentages
are calculated for the two years period are so small as to
allow of no firm deductions, it is still reasonable to assume, from
the figures, that permanent results are not obtained. This
assumption may or may not receive confirmation when, say, 109
cases have been ionized and observed over a period of two years.
At present only 14 cases are available for such a report. The
impression is that the percentage of cases of all clinical varieties
which can be written off as "cured" after two years will not be
large, but the percentage of dry at the end of six months will
remain high. Six months' freedom from discharge is no small
gain. If all those who relapse were to report at once, one or two
applications would generally suffice to ensure, at the least, a
further period of six months freedom. What must not be assumed
is that cases failing to report "no discharge since ionization" are
failures. In many cases there has been only a slight recurrence,
but even if this relapse is followed by years of freedom the case
continues to be omitted from the numbers,shown as dry at all
subsequent periods. The cases, often even in spite of aggravating
conditions, clear up in a way not seen in treatment by "drops."
Very few relapse soon after treatment. A relapse at any time
usually quickly clears up with further applications and, in the
absence of some other septic focus, such as a buried tonsil, the
"cure" tends to become permanent as time goes on. It is noticeable,
also, that in relapsing cases the discharge is less noticeable
than in untreated cases. Some very unpromising cases have been
undertaken, not with any reasonable hope of cure, but because the
value of ionization lies in its power as a sterilising and astringent
agent and by its means a cleaner ear can be ensured.
Parents are appreciating the treatment and attending well
once regular attendance is established; indeed, several have asked
for an extension where the child has left school during treatment.
I' is disappointing, however, to find cases which have relapsed
and not reported the fact. These cases attend well once an
appointment is given, the obstacle seems to be inertia in establishing
connection with the special clinic again. The standard of cure
is high and difficult of attainment, for a damaged ear is always
liable to resume activity with the advent of fresh infection even
in the form of a common cold. A very favourable impression has