Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:08:18.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Endoscopic assisted powered adenoidectomy versus conventional adenoidectomy – a randomised controlled trial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 May 2019

R Juneja*
Affiliation:
Department of ENT and Head and Neck Surgery, Maulana Azad Medical College and Associated Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi, India
R Meher
Affiliation:
Department of ENT and Head and Neck Surgery, Maulana Azad Medical College and Associated Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi, India
A Raj
Affiliation:
Department of ENT and Head and Neck Surgery, Sharda Institute of Medical Sciences, Greater Noida, India
P Rathore
Affiliation:
Department of ENT and Head and Neck Surgery, Maulana Azad Medical College and Associated Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi, India
V Wadhwa
Affiliation:
Department of ENT and Head and Neck Surgery, Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi, India
N Arora
Affiliation:
Department of ENT and Head and Neck Surgery, Maulana Azad Medical College and Associated Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi, India
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Ruchika Juneja, B-7/5 Mianwali Nagar, Rohtak Road, New Delhi 110087, India E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +91 1125 947 056

Abstract

Objective

To compare endoscopic assisted powered adenoidectomy with conventional curettage adenoidectomy.

Methods

A randomised controlled trial was conducted at a tertiary care teaching hospital. Fifty patients with a symptom complex pertaining to adenoid hypertrophy and requiring adenoidectomy were chosen and divided into 2 groups of 25 each. Patients in group A underwent conventional curettage adenoidectomy and those in group B underwent endoscopic assisted powered adenoidectomy. Comparison was based on the parameters of surgical time, intra-operative bleeding, post-operative pain and completeness of adenoid removal.

Results

The surgical time was significantly longer with the powered instrument. Mean blood loss was greater in the powered group, but was statistically insignificant. The powered procedure fared significantly better, with lower pain scores and more instances of complete tissue resection.

Conclusion

A curved microdebrider blade can be used safely and precisely for adenoidectomy under endoscopic vision. It enables complete resection of adenoid tissue. This method also proves to be an excellent teaching aid.

Type
Main Articles
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2019 

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

Dr R Juneja takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

1Bluestone, CD. Paediatric Otolaryngology, 4th edn. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 2003Google Scholar
2Stevenson, RS, Guthrie, D. History of Otolaryngology. Edinburgh: Livingstone, 1949Google Scholar
3Canon, CR, Relogle, WH, Schenk, MP. Endoscopic assisted adenoidectomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;121:740–4Google Scholar
4Parsons, DS. Rhinologic uses of powered instrumentation in children beyond surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1996;29:105–14Google Scholar
5Fujioka, M, Young, LW, Girdani, BR. Radiographic evaluation of adenoidal size in children: adenoidal-nasopharyngeal ratio. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1979;133:401–4Google Scholar
6Clemens, J, McMurray, JS, Willging, JP. Electocautery versus curette adenoidectomy: comparison of postoperative results. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 1998;43:115–22Google Scholar
7Curtin, JM. The history of tonsil and adenoidectomy surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1987;20:417–19Google Scholar
8Bradoo, RA, Modi, RR, Joshi, AA, Wahane, V. Comparison of endoscopic assisted adenoidectomy with conventional methods. Clin Rhinol Int J 2011;4:75–8Google Scholar
9Datta, R, Singh, VP, Deshpal, . Conventional versus endoscopic powered adenoidectomy: a comparative study. Med J Armed Forces India 2009;65:308–12Google Scholar
10Somani, SS, Naik, CS, Bangad, SV. Endoscopic adenoidectomy with microdebrider. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;64:427–31Google Scholar
11Prakash, NS, Mallikarjunappa, AM, Samuel, HT. Endoscopic assisted adenoidectomy versus conventional curettage adenoidectomy – a comparative study. Natl J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;1(suppl 10):1012Google Scholar
12Hussein, IA, Al-Juboori, S. Conventional versus endoscopic-assisted adenoidectomy: a comparative study. Med J Babylon 2012;9:570–82Google Scholar
13Koltai, PJ, Kalathia, AS, Stanislaw, P, Heidi, HA. Power-assisted adenoidectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997;23:685–8Google Scholar
14Stanislaw, P, Koltai, PJ, Feustel, PJ. Comparison of power-assisted adenoidectomy vs adenoid curette adenoidectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;126:845–9Google Scholar
15Feng, Y, Yin, S. Comparison of powered-assisted adenoidectomy with adenoid curette adenoidectomy [in Chinese]. Lin Chuang Er Bi Yan Hou Ke Za Zhi 2006;20:54–7Google Scholar
16Murray, N, Fitzpatrick, P, Guarisco, JL. Powered partial adenoidectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;128:792–6Google Scholar
17Pandian, SS, Shobha, T. Power assisted transoral endoscopic vs conventional adenoidectomy – a comparison. Int J Pharm Bio Sci 2014;5:(B)579–82Google Scholar
18Costantini, F, Salamanca, F, Amaina, T, Zibordi, F. Videoendoscopic adenoidectomy with microdebrider. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2008;28:26–9Google Scholar
19Koltai, PJ, Chan, J, Younes, A. Power-assisted adenoidectomy: total and partial resection. Laryngoscope 1998;112:2931Google Scholar
20Anand, V, Sarin, V, Singh, B. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014;66:375–80Google Scholar
21Havas, T, Lowinger, D. Obstructive adenoid tissue. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;128:789–91Google Scholar