A Comparative Study between Coblation Adenoidectomy and Conventional Adenoidectomy

Abstract

Back ground: the classic surgical technique performed with an adenoid curette or an adenotome has recently developed by the introduction of the endoscopic sinus surgery Objectives: to compare the safety and efficacy of coblation adenoidectomy versus conventional curettage adenoidectomy.Patients and methods: This study was conducted on 50 patients who came to outpatient clinics in the Otolaryngology department, of age group between 4-14 years with adenoids hypertrophy from February 2019 to February 2020.Results: results revealed that the mean time of operation, it was11.1 ± 1.5 min in group A, but was 14.2 ± 1.8 min in group B, with statistical significance relationship P=000. Regarding the mean of Intra operative blood loss, it was32.4±3.2 ml in group A, but was 2.5±1.2 ml in group B, with statistical significance relationship P=000. Conclusion:The advent of endoscopes made a significant impact in adenoidectomy. Endoscopic assisted adenoidectomy is a natural progression of this technology to allow a more complete adenoidectomy. From this we concluded that the overall advantages of coblation adenoidectomy, compared with cold curettage, are the decrease in intra and post-operative bleeding, better safety, precision of adenoid removal and less injury to adjacent tissues.

Comparative Study between Different Techniques of Adenoidectomy

“…Group A was associated with a significant decrease in resolution days. Aref et al [13] reported a significant decline in recovery days in association with the coblation technique compared to the conventional one [2.6 vs. 4.7 days in the two groups respectivelyp < 0.001], which coincides with the findings of this study.…”

“…Operative time was significantly decreased in Group C in comparison with the other two groups. In line with our findings, Aref et al [13] reported a substantial increase in operating time associated with coblation versus the standard method [p < 0.001]. It had mean values of 14.2 and 11.1 minutes in the coblation and conventional groups respectively.…”

“…In this study, Group C showed a significant increase in intra operative blood loss [58.5 ml] compared to groups A and B [35.17 and 12.67 ml respectively] [p < 0.001]. In the same context, another study reported a significant decline in intraoperative blood loss when the coblation device was used [2.5±1.2 vs. 32.4±3.2 in the conventional groupp < 0.001] [13] . Furthermore, Hapalia et al [14] reported that the mean values of blood loss were 28.5 and 19 ml in the conventional and coblation groups respectively.…”

“…According to a study, these regions miss a significant amount of adenoid tissue when using traditional curettage [21] . In a different trial that was identical to this one, residual lymphoid tissue was found in 8% and 40% of the coblation and conventional groups, respectively, with a considerable reduction in the coblation group [p = 0.008] [13] .…”