R Datta1, V P Singh2. 1. Classified Specialist(ENT), Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt-10. 2. Classified Specialist (ENT), MH (Dehradun).
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Adenoidectomy is a commonly performed ENT surgery. It is conventionally performed using the curettage method. This present article aims to evaluate endoscopic powered adenoidectomy as an alternative. METHODS:Sixty consecutive cases requiring adenoidectomy were randomized into two groups of thirty each. Group A underwent conventional adenoidectomy using the curettage method and Group B underwent endoscopic assisted micro-debrider adenoidectomy. The parameters studied were intra-operative time, intra-operative bleeding and completeness of resection, collateral damage, post operative pain and recovery time. RESULT: Sixty cases of adenoidectomy were done using conventional surgery and powered endoscopic adenoidectomy in the study period from Aug 04 to Dec 05. The time taken in Group A (conventional surgery) varied from 22-39 minutes (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -27.7 - 30.9)and in Group B (powered endoscopic surgery) from 27-55 minutes(95% CI 36.6 - 41.9) (p<0.05). The average blood loss in Group A was 21 ml (range 10-50) as compared to 31.67 ml (range 10-60) in Group B (p<0.05). The resection was invariably complete in Group B whereas seven(23%) cases had more than 50% residual adenoid tissue in Group A. Three cases in group A had collateral damage whereas in Group B, there were no added injuries. Post operative pain was studied only in cases undergoing adenoidectomy alone. Group A (n=8) demonstrated a pain score of 1.64-2.63-3.63 (95% CI) whereas Group B (n=11) demonstrated a pain score of 1.19-2.13-3.06 (95% CI). This difference was not statistically significant. In group A, the mean recovery period was 3.5 days and 2.93 days in Group B(p<0.05). CONCLUSION:Endoscopic powered adenoidectomy was found to be a safe and effective tool for adenoidectomy. The study parameters where endoscopic powered adenoidectomy fared better were completeness of resection, accurate resection under vision, lesser collateral damage and faster recovery time. On the other hand, conventional adenoidectomy scored in matter of lesser operative time and intra-operative bleeding.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Adenoidectomy is a commonly performed ENT surgery. It is conventionally performed using the curettage method. This present article aims to evaluate endoscopic powered adenoidectomy as an alternative. METHODS: Sixty consecutive cases requiring adenoidectomy were randomized into two groups of thirty each. Group A underwent conventional adenoidectomy using the curettage method and Group B underwent endoscopic assisted micro-debrider adenoidectomy. The parameters studied were intra-operative time, intra-operative bleeding and completeness of resection, collateral damage, post operative pain and recovery time. RESULT: Sixty cases of adenoidectomy were done using conventional surgery and powered endoscopic adenoidectomy in the study period from Aug 04 to Dec 05. The time taken in Group A (conventional surgery) varied from 22-39 minutes (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -27.7 - 30.9)and in Group B (powered endoscopic surgery) from 27-55 minutes(95% CI 36.6 - 41.9) (p<0.05). The average blood loss in Group A was 21 ml (range 10-50) as compared to 31.67 ml (range 10-60) in Group B (p<0.05). The resection was invariably complete in Group B whereas seven(23%) cases had more than 50% residual adenoid tissue in Group A. Three cases in group A had collateral damage whereas in Group B, there were no added injuries. Post operative pain was studied only in cases undergoing adenoidectomy alone. Group A (n=8) demonstrated a pain score of 1.64-2.63-3.63 (95% CI) whereas Group B (n=11) demonstrated a pain score of 1.19-2.13-3.06 (95% CI). This difference was not statistically significant. In group A, the mean recovery period was 3.5 days and 2.93 days in Group B(p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Endoscopic powered adenoidectomy was found to be a safe and effective tool for adenoidectomy. The study parameters where endoscopic powered adenoidectomy fared better were completeness of resection, accurate resection under vision, lesser collateral damage and faster recovery time. On the other hand, conventional adenoidectomy scored in matter of lesser operative time and intra-operative bleeding.
Authors: Alberto Maria Saibene; Cecilia Rosso; Carlotta Pipolo; Paolo Lozza; Alberto Scotti; Filippo Ghelma; Fabiana Allevi; Alberto Maccari; Giovanni Felisati Journal: Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 2.124