A Comparative Study of Endoscopic Coblation Adenoidectomy and Regular Curettage Adenoidectomy in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Kerala

BACKGROUND An ideal surgery to remove hypertrophied adenoid mass should be safe, with less bleeding and operation time along with post-operative improvement in the eustachian tubal ventilation and normal respiration. It should also have low morbidity and mortality. Among the various methods described for its removal, the two commonly used methods are conventional cold curettage method and coblation technique. The purpose of this study was to collate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic coblation adenoidectomy with the conventional curettage adenoidectomy. METHODS A prospective comparative study with fifty patients was studied who underwent adenoidectomy. Twenty five patients underwent endoscopy assisted coblation adenoidectomy and twenty five patients underwent regular adenoidectomy by curettage. RESULTS Patients who underwent coblation adenoidectomy showed better results during follow up in terms of completeness of removal. 80 % of children undergoing regular adenoidectomy by curettage method showed remnant adenoid tissue in the nasopharynx at the end of the procedure. But it was 6 % among the children undergoing endoscopic assisted coblation adenoidectomy. The mean duration of operation was higher for endoscopic assisted coblation adenoidectomy which was significant statistically. The mean blood loss was 30.36 ml in regular curettage adenoidectomy; 10.6 ml with endoscopic coblation adenoidectomy. The grading of pain was significantly lower in endoscopic assisted coblation adenoidectomy. There was no significant difference between two groups in terms of eustachian tube function after surgery. CONCLUSIONS Coblation adenoidectomy has significant advantages over conventional adenoidectomy in terms of completeness of removal, reduced blood loss, and lower post-operative pain grade. KEYWORDS Coblation, Adenoidectomy, Curettage, Haemorrhage and Complications