Adequacy of traditional curette versus powered shaver for adenoid clearance: a comparative study

Nagarathna Hosalli Kumaraswamy; Shruti S. Warhapande; Saritha H. M.

doi:10.18203/2349-3291.ijcp20232242

Authors

Nagarathna Hosalli Kumaraswamy Department of ENT, Akash Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Devanahalli, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
Shruti S. Warhapande Department of ENT, Chinmaya Mission Hospital, Indiranagar, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0116-2872
Saritha H. M. Department of ENT, Akash Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Devanahalli, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7391-8478

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-3291.ijcp20232242

Keywords:

Adenoidectomy, Blood loss, Endoscopic adenoidectomy, Microdebrider assisted adenoidectomy

Abstract

Background: Adenoid growth is a prevalent aetiology of blockage of nasal passage in paediatric patients, and multiple techniques exist for their surgical removal. The objective of this investigation was to study the efficacy of the conventional curette versus the endoscopic guided powered shaver in the context of adenoid clearance.

Methods: In this study, a comparative analysis was performed on a sample of 119 patients, consisting of two distinct groups. Group I-60 patients who underwent conventional adenoidectomy, while group II-59 patients who underwent endoscopic microdebrider-assisted adenoidectomy. The methods employed in this study were in accordance with established medical practises. The research evaluated outcome measures including surgical duration, haemorrhage, and perioperative and postoperative adverse events.

Results: Group I, 17 (28.3%) received adenoidectomy as a standalone procedure, group II, 22 (37.3%) received adenoidectomy as a standalone procedure. An adenotonsillectomy was executed on 21 patients, accounting for 35% of group I, and 10 patients, accounting for 16.9% of group II. The study found that group I exhibited significantly reduced operation time and blood loss compared to group II (20.88±4.41 vs. 29.00±4.15 minutes and 13.47±3.02 vs. 18.64±3.16 millilitres, respectively). Intraoperative complications were observed in 10% of patients in group I and 5.1% of patients in group II. The group II participants exhibited a more rapid onset of symptomatic relief compared to those in group I. There was no evidence of recurrence in the cohort of patients who underwent endoscopic microdebrider-assisted adenoidectomy.

Conclusions: Endoscopic microdebrider-assisted adenoidectomy is a superior and dependable technique compared to curettage, exhibiting improved clearance rates and patient contentment.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Ravishakar C, Killera S. Comparing endoscopic microdebrider assisted adenoidectomy with curettage procedure. Int J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;4(2):559-64.

Georgalas C, Thomas K, Owens C, Abramovich S, Lack G. Medical treatment for rhinosinusitis associated with adenoidal hypertrophy in children: an evaluation of clinical response and changes on magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2005;114(8):638-44.

Türkoğlu Babakurban S, Aydın E. Adenoidectomy: current approaches and review of the literature. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg. 2016;26(3):181-90.

Nguyen L, Manoukian JJ, Yoskovitch A, Al-Sebeih KH. Adenoidectomy - selection criteria for surgical cases of otitis media. Laryngoscope. 2004;114:863-6.

Elluru RG, Johnson L, Myer CM. Electrocautery adenoidectomy compared with curettage and power assisted methods”. Laryngoscope. 2002;112(8):23-5.

Stanislaw P, Koltai PJ, Feustel PJ. Comparison of power-assisted adenoidectomy Vs adenoid curette adenoidectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;126:845-9.

Koltai PJ, Chan J, Younes A. Power-assisted adenoidectomy: total and partial resection. Laryngoscope. 2002;112(8-2-100):29-31.

Wan YM, Wong KC, Ma KH. Endoscopic guided adenoidectomy using a classic adenoid curette: a simple way to improve adenoidectomy. Hong Kong Med J. 2005;11(1):42-4.

Rasmussen N. Complications of tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy”. Otolaryngolog Clin N Am. 1987;20(2):383-90.

Huang HM, Chao MC, Chen YL, Hsiao HR. A combined method of conventional and endoscopic adenoidectomy. Laryngoscope. 1998;108(7):1104-6.

Cannon CR, Replogle WH, Schenk MP. Endoscopic - assisted adenoidectomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;121:740-4.

Cassano P, Gelardi M, Cassano M, Fiorella ML, Fiorella R. Adenoid tissue rhinopharyngeal obstruction grading based on fiberendoscopic findings: a novel approach to therapeutic management. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2003;67(12):1303-9.

Curtin JM. The history of tonsils and adenoid surgery. Otolaryngologic Clin N Am. 1987;20:415-6.

Havas T, Lowenger D. Obstructive adenoid tissue. An indication for power shaver adenoidectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head neck Surg. 2002;128:789-91.

Wright ED, Manoukian JJ, Shapiro RS. Ablative adenoidectomy: a new technique using simultaneous liquefaction /aspiration. J Otolaryngol. 1997;26:36-43.

Atisha T, Modi JB, Raval RG, Purva C. Comparative Study Between Conventional Curettage Adenoidectomy Versus Endoscopic Microdebrider Assisted Adenoidectomy: Our Experience. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;1-6.

Shin JJ, Hartnick CJ. Pediatric endoscopic transnasal adenoid ablation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2003;112(6):511-4.

Liyun Y, Shan Y, Wang S, Cai C, Zhang H. Endoscopic assisted adenoidectomy versus conventional curettage adenoidectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Springer Plus. 2016;(5):426-33.

Bosenberg A, Thomas J, Lopez T, Kokinsky E, Larsson LE. Validation of a six-graded faces scale for evaluation of postoperative pain in children. Paediatr Anaesth. 2003;13(8):708-13.

Becker SP, Roberts N, Coglianese D. Endoscopic adenoidectomy for relief of serous otitis media. Laryngoscope. 1992;102(12 Pt 1):1379-84.

Stern Y, Segal K, Yaniv E. Endoscopic adenoidectomy in children with submucosal cleft palate. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2006;70(11):1871-4.

Singh S, Padiyar BV, Sharma N. Endoscopic-assisted powered adenoidectomy versus conventional adenoidectomy: A randomized study. Dubai Med J. 2019;2(2):41-5.

Das AT, Prakash SB, Priyadarshini V. Combined conventional and endoscopic microdebrider-assisted adenoidectomy: A tertiary centre experience. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11(2):MC05-7.

Kiran G, Selvam S, Thingujam J. Revisiting conventional adenoidectomy using technology. Int J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;6(7):1232-7.

Bidaye R, Vaid N, Desarda K. Comparative analysis of conventional cold curettage versus endoscopic assisted coblation adenoidectomy. J Laryngol Otol. 2019;133(4):294-9.