Objectives: To investigate if the clinical status of the eardrum could be an inclusion criterion for the therapy of chronic secretory otitis media (CSOM) in children. To compare the results of treating CSOM by adenoidectomy and by adenoidectomy in combination with tympanostomy tubes in two groups of patients chosen according to that criterion.Patients and Methods:161 ears in 87 children were treated for CSOM. An otomicroscopic examination showed there were no pathological changes on the tympanic membrane (signs of adhesive process, malleus rotation, and dangerous attic retractions). The patients were divided into two groups: the first group of 59 ears was treated by adenoidectomy with tympanostomy tubes, while the other group of 102 ears was treated only by adenoidectomy. At least 6 months after the treatment, otomicroscopy and audiological assessments were performed in order to show the resolution of the middle ear effusion, audiological results and incidence of clinical sequelae of the eardrum.Results:The resolution of MEE by adenoidectomy alone was not significantly different from the results of treatment by adenoidectomy and tympanostomy tubes (z=1.565; p=0.0587).There were no differences in pure tone audiometry between the two methods of treatment. Only at the frequency of 2000 Hz (t=2.173; p=0.031) in treatment with adenoidectomy and tympanostomy tubes the values of air-bone gap (ABG) were lower.Sequelae: scars of the eardrum (chi-square=28.107; ss=1; p<0.001) and attic retractions (chi-square=4.592; ss=1; p=0.032) were more often in treatment with tubes. The incidence of clinical sequelae on the eardrum after treatment by tubes was commented on.Conclusion:A criterion that could influence the approach to the therapy of CSOM in children.