消融腺样体切除术与常规腺样体切除术:两种不同腺样体切除术技术的比较研究。

Q3 Medicine
Dianitta-Devapriya Veronica, Prabaakharan Jambunathan
{"title":"消融腺样体切除术与常规腺样体切除术:两种不同腺样体切除术技术的比较研究。","authors":"Dianitta-Devapriya Veronica, Prabaakharan Jambunathan","doi":"10.22038/ijorl.2025.84811.3855","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Chronic nasal obstruction, frequent respiratory infections, recurrent ear blocks, earaches, and pediatric obstructive sleep apnea may indicate adenoid enlargement, one of the most common conditions encountered in pediatric otorhinolaryngology practice. Adenoidectomy is a simple procedure with certain limitations, which has led to various innovations in surgical techniques in the recent past. The study aimed to compare two different adenoidectomy techniques: the endoscopy-assisted coblation adenoidectomy and the conventional curettage adenoidectomy.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In this prospective randomized interventional study involving 40 patients, 20 patients in Group A underwent curettage adenoidectomy, and 20 patients in Group B underwent endoscopic coblation adenoidectomy. Complete adenoid tissue removal, surgical blood loss, operative duration, postoperative pain, and recovery time are the outcome measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Endoscopy-assisted coblation adenoidectomy enabled complete adenoid removal better than conventional adenoidectomy, 15 patients (75%) had complete removal versus 3 patients (15%) in the conventional group (p-value of 0.0003). The mean blood loss was 30 ± 5.60 mL in Group A and 10.75 ± 2.93 mL in Group B (p = 0.0001). The pain score assessed using the visual analog scale was 4 ± 0.44 in Group A and 3 ± 0.36 in Group B (p = 0.0001). The mean time taken for recovery in Group A was 3.14 ± 0.62 days and that in Group B was 2.64 ± 0.64 days (p = 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Coblation adenoidectomy under endoscopic guidance enabled complete adenoid removal, reduction in surgical blood loss and postoperative pain, and shortened recovery time.</p>","PeriodicalId":14607,"journal":{"name":"Iranian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology","volume":"37 4","pages":"179-186"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12335664/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Coblation Adenoidectomy Versus Conventional Adenoidectomy: A Comparative Study of two Different Techniques of Adenoidectomy.\",\"authors\":\"Dianitta-Devapriya Veronica, Prabaakharan Jambunathan\",\"doi\":\"10.22038/ijorl.2025.84811.3855\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Chronic nasal obstruction, frequent respiratory infections, recurrent ear blocks, earaches, and pediatric obstructive sleep apnea may indicate adenoid enlargement, one of the most common conditions encountered in pediatric otorhinolaryngology practice. Adenoidectomy is a simple procedure with certain limitations, which has led to various innovations in surgical techniques in the recent past. The study aimed to compare two different adenoidectomy techniques: the endoscopy-assisted coblation adenoidectomy and the conventional curettage adenoidectomy.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In this prospective randomized interventional study involving 40 patients, 20 patients in Group A underwent curettage adenoidectomy, and 20 patients in Group B underwent endoscopic coblation adenoidectomy. Complete adenoid tissue removal, surgical blood loss, operative duration, postoperative pain, and recovery time are the outcome measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Endoscopy-assisted coblation adenoidectomy enabled complete adenoid removal better than conventional adenoidectomy, 15 patients (75%) had complete removal versus 3 patients (15%) in the conventional group (p-value of 0.0003). The mean blood loss was 30 ± 5.60 mL in Group A and 10.75 ± 2.93 mL in Group B (p = 0.0001). The pain score assessed using the visual analog scale was 4 ± 0.44 in Group A and 3 ± 0.36 in Group B (p = 0.0001). The mean time taken for recovery in Group A was 3.14 ± 0.62 days and that in Group B was 2.64 ± 0.64 days (p = 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Coblation adenoidectomy under endoscopic guidance enabled complete adenoid removal, reduction in surgical blood loss and postoperative pain, and shortened recovery time.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14607,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Iranian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology\",\"volume\":\"37 4\",\"pages\":\"179-186\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12335664/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Iranian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22038/ijorl.2025.84811.3855\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Iranian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22038/ijorl.2025.84811.3855","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

慢性鼻塞、频繁的呼吸道感染、复发性耳塞、耳痛和儿童阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停可能表明腺样体肿大,这是儿童耳鼻喉科实践中最常见的疾病之一。腺样体切除术是一种简单的手术,有一定的局限性,这导致了近年来手术技术的各种创新。本研究旨在比较两种不同的腺样体切除术技术:内窥镜辅助消融腺样体切除术和常规刮除腺样体切除术。材料与方法:本前瞻性随机介入研究共40例患者,A组20例患者行刮除性腺样体切除术,B组20例患者行内镜消融性腺样体切除术。腺样体组织完全切除、手术出血量、手术时间、术后疼痛和恢复时间是衡量结果的指标。结果:内镜辅助消融腺样体切除术比常规腺样体切除术能更好地完全切除腺样体,15例(75%)患者完全切除,而常规组3例(15%)患者完全切除(p值为0.0003)。A组平均出血量为30±5.60 mL, B组平均出血量为10.75±2.93 mL (p = 0.0001)。采用视觉模拟评分法评定A组疼痛评分为4±0.44分,B组为3±0.36分(p = 0.0001)。A组平均恢复时间为3.14±0.62 d, B组平均恢复时间为2.64±0.64 d (p = 0.001)。结论:内镜引导下消融腺样体切除术可完全切除腺样体,减少手术出血量和术后疼痛,缩短恢复时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Coblation Adenoidectomy Versus Conventional Adenoidectomy: A Comparative Study of two Different Techniques of Adenoidectomy.

Introduction: Chronic nasal obstruction, frequent respiratory infections, recurrent ear blocks, earaches, and pediatric obstructive sleep apnea may indicate adenoid enlargement, one of the most common conditions encountered in pediatric otorhinolaryngology practice. Adenoidectomy is a simple procedure with certain limitations, which has led to various innovations in surgical techniques in the recent past. The study aimed to compare two different adenoidectomy techniques: the endoscopy-assisted coblation adenoidectomy and the conventional curettage adenoidectomy.

Materials and methods: In this prospective randomized interventional study involving 40 patients, 20 patients in Group A underwent curettage adenoidectomy, and 20 patients in Group B underwent endoscopic coblation adenoidectomy. Complete adenoid tissue removal, surgical blood loss, operative duration, postoperative pain, and recovery time are the outcome measures.

Results: Endoscopy-assisted coblation adenoidectomy enabled complete adenoid removal better than conventional adenoidectomy, 15 patients (75%) had complete removal versus 3 patients (15%) in the conventional group (p-value of 0.0003). The mean blood loss was 30 ± 5.60 mL in Group A and 10.75 ± 2.93 mL in Group B (p = 0.0001). The pain score assessed using the visual analog scale was 4 ± 0.44 in Group A and 3 ± 0.36 in Group B (p = 0.0001). The mean time taken for recovery in Group A was 3.14 ± 0.62 days and that in Group B was 2.64 ± 0.64 days (p = 0.001).

Conclusions: Coblation adenoidectomy under endoscopic guidance enabled complete adenoid removal, reduction in surgical blood loss and postoperative pain, and shortened recovery time.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Iranian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
Iranian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology Medicine-Otorhinolaryngology
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
72
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信