2010
DOI: 10.1002/lary.21045
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Endoscopic‐assisted versus curettage adenoidectomy: A prospective, randomized, double‐blind study with objective outcome measures

Abstract: Although, objective outcomes reveal that endoscopic-assisted adenoidectomy technique was superior to curettage adenoidectomy in reducing adenoidal size after surgery, subjectively no differences were noted between two methods.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
23
0
2

Year Published

2011
2011
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
1
23
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…By the end of a 2-year follow-up, recurrent obstructive adenoid was detected in 6.6% of cases that were not subjected to nasopharyngeal endoscopic exploration, while it was detected in 1.18% of cases that were explored with cauterization of any residual adenoidal tissues. Songu et al [16] compared endoscopic assisted adenoidectomy with conventional curettage adenoidectomy; they found no significant difference between both techniques regarding recurrent obstructive nasal symptoms despite the superiority of endoscopic method in decreasing the adenoidal size after surgery, however, their study sample was small (38 patients). Ezzat [17] studied 312 adenoidectomy patients; with endoscopic examination of 122 patients, he found residual obstructive adenoidal tissues that were missed after conventional adenoidectomy in 14.5%, however, adenoidectomies were not done by a single surgeon with different experience and surgical talent between otolaryngologists, telephone questionnaire was used in the follow-up of patients and it showed recurrence in 5.6% in the non-endoscopically examined group while it was 0.85% in the endoscopically examined group.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…By the end of a 2-year follow-up, recurrent obstructive adenoid was detected in 6.6% of cases that were not subjected to nasopharyngeal endoscopic exploration, while it was detected in 1.18% of cases that were explored with cauterization of any residual adenoidal tissues. Songu et al [16] compared endoscopic assisted adenoidectomy with conventional curettage adenoidectomy; they found no significant difference between both techniques regarding recurrent obstructive nasal symptoms despite the superiority of endoscopic method in decreasing the adenoidal size after surgery, however, their study sample was small (38 patients). Ezzat [17] studied 312 adenoidectomy patients; with endoscopic examination of 122 patients, he found residual obstructive adenoidal tissues that were missed after conventional adenoidectomy in 14.5%, however, adenoidectomies were not done by a single surgeon with different experience and surgical talent between otolaryngologists, telephone questionnaire was used in the follow-up of patients and it showed recurrence in 5.6% in the non-endoscopically examined group while it was 0.85% in the endoscopically examined group.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…To start the surgery of adenoidectomy under direct endoscopic visualization has been described by many (Wan et al, 2005, Songu et al, 2010, this technique implies the introduction of the endoscope endonasally at the beginning of surgery, attachment to a monitor, then using the regular mouth gag and conventional curette in excision of the adenoid tissue.…”
Section: Endoscopic Visualization With Routine Curettage Adenoidectomymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1 Conventional curettage technique of adenoidectomy has several disadvantages including recurrence of the disease and complications like bleeding. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Coblation is a relatively new tool to do adenoidectomy with better results and lesser complications. [4][5][6][7][8] Aims of study 1) To study the advantages of coblation adenoidectomy in comparison with conventional adenoidectomy.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%