Conventional Versus Endoscopic Powered Adenoidectomy: A Comparative Study

Datta, Rakesh; Singh, V. P.; Deshpal,

doi:10.1016/s0377-1237(09)80089-0

Cited by 39 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In our study 10% (3) cases in the conventional group had Eustachian tube damage and no collateral damage in endoscopic group. A study by Datta et al 34 in 2009 yielded similar results 5 cases in group A had posterior septal wall or vault region injury and 3 cases had injury to torus tubaris. One case in endocopic group in this study had injury to nasal mucosa whereas in our study the endoscopic group showed no mucosal injuries (graph-2).…”

Section: Section: Entmentioning

confidence: 63%

“…This result is comparable to the results of study by Hussein and Al-juboori S et al in 2012. 32 And also studies by stansilaw et al 33 , Havas et al 22 , Datta et al 34 and Ezzat et al 35 with an incidence of 20%, 39%, 39%, 30% and 14.5% residual tissue respectively. In the study by V Anand et al 31 in 2013 in Amritsar also showed 25% residual adenoid in conventional group and complete removal in the endoscopic group.…”

Section: Section: Entmentioning

confidence: 88%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Perioperative Collateral Injury, Presence of Residual Adenoid Tissue and Recovery Time in Conventional Versus Microdebrider Assisted Endoscopic Adenoidectomy in Children Less than or Equal to 12 Years.

Pradeesh¹,

R²,

Kb³

2019

IJCMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Adenoids together with palatine tonsils tubal tonsils and lingual tonsil form the inner Waldeyer's ring and its enlargement depends on external factors such as allergy, immunosuppression, passive tobacco smoke but mainly chronic bacterial and viral infection. The study compares the effectiveness of certain factors in conventional curettage versus endoscopic adenoidectomy in a tertiary care centre in Trivandrum, Kerala, India. Study was done with the objectives to study the perioperative collateral injury, presence of residual adenoid tissue and recovery time in conventional versus microdebrider assisted endoscopic adenoidectomy in children less than or equal to 12 years. Material and methods: An observational study was done in a group of 60 patients of age less than or equal to 12 years who satisfied the inclusion criteria who underwent treatment in department of ENT in Sree Gokulam medical college during a period of 2017-2018. Patients were grouped into 2 groups of 30 each. Group A underwent conventional curettage and group B underwent microdebrider assisted endoscopic adenoidectomy. Patients were followed up 1 week and 2 months following the procedure by post operative nasal endoscopy to assess collateral damage and residual adenoid tissue. Results: The residual tissue in conventional adenoidectomy was 20% and 20-50% in 2 cases and more than 50% in 4 cases. This was the main cause of persistence of symptoms in conventional adenoidectomy. The mean recovery time was 4.1 days in conventional and 3.2 days in endoscopic adenoidectomy. In conventional adenoidectomy 3 cases (10%) had collateral damage in which 2 cases had injury to eustacian tube orifice and 1 case had injury to torus tubaris. In the endoscopic microdebrider assisted surgery no collateral damage was recorded. Conclusion: The study showed that the completeness of dissection, collateral injury and recovery time was better in the endoscopic adenoidectomy compared to conventional curettage.

show abstract

Section: Section: Entmentioning

confidence: 63%

Section: Section: Entmentioning

confidence: 88%

Comparison of Perioperative Collateral Injury, Presence of Residual Adenoid Tissue and Recovery Time in Conventional Versus Microdebrider Assisted Endoscopic Adenoidectomy in Children Less than or Equal to 12 Years.

Pradeesh¹,

R²,

Kb³

2019

IJCMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In another study done by Datta et al, they stated that Endoscopic powered adenoidectomy was found to be a safe and effective tool for adenoidectomy. 8 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.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Comparison of microdebrider assisted adenoidectomy and adenoid curette adenoidectomy

Shaweta

Azad

Minhas

et al. 2018

Int J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Adenoidectomy is the surgical procedure to remove the adenoids. It is conventionally performed using the curettage method. The aim is to compare between adenoid curette adenoidectomy and microdebrider assisted adenoidectomy.Methods: From April 2016 to March 2017, 50 patients (34 males and 16 females), requiring adenoidectomy were randomized into two groups each of twenty five. Group A underwent microdebrider assisted adenoidectomy. Group B underwent conventional adenoidectomy using the curettage method. The parameters studied were intra-operative time, blood loss, residual tissue, associated trauma, and post-operative symptomatic relief and complications. Results: Microdebrider assisted adenoidectomy was significantly better in terms of residual tissue left behind as compared to adenoid curette adenoidectomy (p<0.001), similar operative blood loss and operative time with no difference in complications.Conclusions: Microdebrider-assisted adenoidectomy is a safe and effective alternative to curettage method as it allows complete removal of adenoid tissue under direct vision.

show abstract

“…The former technique of adenoidectomy ensures complete tissue removal and reduced operative duration but has the disadvantage of increased intraoperative bleeding. 12 Coblation is associated with reduced blood loss and complete tissue removal but the equipment is expensive. When compared with coblation and microdebrider, suction diathermy is less expensive.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Suction diathermy adenoidectomy: audit of current practice in a tertiary care hospital

Venkataramani¹,

Sachidananda²,

Dachuri³

et al. 2019

Int J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Adenoidectomy is conventionally performed using adenoid curette as a blind procedure. Suction diathermy adenoidectomy is a technique of ablating the adenoid tissue using thermal energy and removing it by suction. This audit aims to study the efficacy and complications of this technique in a tertiary care center.Methods: Retrospective analysis of hospital database was conducted. Twenty-seven patients who underwent suction diathermy adenoidectomy were identified and hospital records studied. Parents were contacted and enquired regarding improvement in child's symptoms.Results: No instances of postoperative complications identified. All except 2 parents were completely satisfied with the improvement in their child's symptoms. Two children had occasional mouth breathing.Conclusions: Suction diathermy adenoidectomy is a feasible alternative to conventional adenoidectomy with few complications and minimal rate of recurrence.

show abstract

Conventional Versus Endoscopic Powered Adenoidectomy: A Comparative Study

Cited by 39 publications

References 10 publications

Comparison of Perioperative Collateral Injury, Presence of Residual Adenoid Tissue and Recovery Time in Conventional Versus Microdebrider Assisted Endoscopic Adenoidectomy in Children Less than or Equal to 12 Years.

Comparison of Perioperative Collateral Injury, Presence of Residual Adenoid Tissue and Recovery Time in Conventional Versus Microdebrider Assisted Endoscopic Adenoidectomy in Children Less than or Equal to 12 Years.

Comparison of microdebrider assisted adenoidectomy and adenoid curette adenoidectomy

Suction diathermy adenoidectomy: audit of current practice in a tertiary care hospital

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About