Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T20:16:07.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Adenoidectomy techniques: UK survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 November 2009

G Dhanasekar*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Manor Hospital, Walsall, UK
A Liapi
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Manor Hospital, Walsall, UK
N Turner
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Manor Hospital, Walsall, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr G Dhanasekar, 6 Woodhayes Croft, Wolverhampton WV10 8PP, UK. Fax: 01902 861022 E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Objectives:

To determine (1) the preferred adenoidectomy technique among UK ENT consultants, and (2) the need for revision adenoidectomy following the standard technique of blind curettage with digital palpation.

Method:

Postal questionnaire.

Participants:

We included 539 consultant members of the ENT–UK.

Main outcome measures:

Commonly used adenoidectomy techniques, and whether revision adenoidectomy was considered a problem.

Results:

The response rate was 66.6 per cent (359 respondents). Twenty-seven respondents did not perform adenoidectomy, while 332 did. A total of 312/332 respondents (94 per cent) believed that adenoidectomy had a role in the treatment of chronic serous otitis media. The majority of respondents (232/332; 69.9 per cent) reported examining the postnasal space digitally at adenoidectomy. The preferred routine adenoidectomy technique was blind curettage for 263 respondents (79.2 per cent), suction diathermy ablation for 27 (8.1 per cent) and curettage under direct vision (using a mirror) for 13 (3.9 per cent). In response to the question ‘Do you recognise the need for revision adenoidectomy as a problem?’, 205 (61.7 per cent) respondents replied ‘never’, 39 (11.7 per cent) ‘rarely’, 54 (16.3 per cent) ‘< 2 per cent’ and 36 (10.8 per cent) ‘>2 per cent’.

Conclusions:

The most commonly used adenoidectomy technique in the UK is digital palpation followed by blind curettage, according to this postal questionnaire survey. Few respondents reported performing adenoidectomy under direct vision: only 10 per cent used a mirror during the procedure and only 8 per cent used an endoscope.

Type
Main Articles
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Presented as a poster at the 13th British Academic Conference in Otolaryngology meeting, 8–10 July 2009, Liverpool, UK.

References

1Liapi, A, Dhanasekar, G, Turner, NO. The role of revision adenoidectomy in paediatric otolaryngological practice. J Laryngol Otol 2006;120:219–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Bross-Soriano, D, Schimelmitz-Idi, J, Arrieta-Gómez, JR. Endoscopic adenoidectomy; use or abuse of the technology? Cir Cir 2004;72:15–9, 21–2Google ScholarPubMed
3Monroy, A, Behar, P, Brodsky, L. Revision adenoidectomy – a retrospective study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2008;72:565–70CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Hartley, BE, Papsin, BC, Albert, DM. Suction diathermy adenoidectomy. Clin Otolaryngol 1998;23:308–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Stanislaw, P, Koltai, P, Feustel, P. Comparison of power-assisted adenoidectomy vs. adenoid curette adenoidectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;126:845–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Shin, JJ, Hartnick, CJ. Paediatric endoscopic transnasal adenoid ablation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2003;112:511–14CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Skilbeck, CJ, Tweedie, DJ, Lloyd-Thomas, AR, Albert, DM. Suction diathermy for adenoidectomy: complications and risk of recurrence. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2007;71:917–20Google ScholarPubMed