A Comparative Study of Coblation versus Dissection Tonsillectomy

IF 0.1 Q4 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY Bangladesh Journal of Otorhinolaryngology Pub Date : 2020-12-09 DOI:10.3329/bjo.v26i2.50613
Dipankar Lodh, SM Abdul Awual, Tawhidul Islam Mondol, S. Islam, Mohammad Nazrul Islam, H. Rashid
{"title":"A Comparative Study of Coblation versus Dissection Tonsillectomy","authors":"Dipankar Lodh, SM Abdul Awual, Tawhidul Islam Mondol, S. Islam, Mohammad Nazrul Islam, H. Rashid","doi":"10.3329/bjo.v26i2.50613","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: To compare the efficacy of coblation tonsillectomy and dissection tonsillectomy regarding the duration of surgery, amount of intraoperative bleeding, postoperative pain, recovery time and complications. \nMethods: 50 patients aged 5-30 years with chronic tonsillitis who underwent tonsillectomy operation were randomly divided into two groups. One group underwent coblation tonsillectomy while other group with dissection tonsillectomy. Chronic tonsillitis patients with adenoid hypertrophy and Otitis media with effusion were excluded by diagnostic nasal endoscopy, imaging and audiometry. All patient were examined regularly after surgery for 10 days to assess the postoperative morbidity and efficacy of both coblation and dissection methods. Duration of surgery, amount of intraoperative bleeding, recovery time, postoperative pain& requirement of analgesics, time required to regain normal diet & activityand complication were assessed. \nResult: Comparing the coblation tonsillectomy to cold dissection group the mean duration of surgery was 9.7 versus 18.4 minutes, the amount of intra operative bleeding 10.62 versus 28.72 milliliter. The difference on the postoperative pain scale, requirement of analgesics, condition of the tonsillar fossa, time required to regain normal diet & activity between two groups were statistically significant. \nConclusion: In our study patient underwent coblation tonsillectomy providing a near bloodless field, minimum operating time, less postoperative pain, quicker return to normal diet, normal activity and less use of analgesics than patients underwent dissection tonsillectomy. Postoperative morbidity and complications were lower as compared to conventional cold dissection technique. \nBangladesh J Otorhinolaryngol; October 2020; 26(2): 121-127","PeriodicalId":53915,"journal":{"name":"Bangladesh Journal of Otorhinolaryngology","volume":"26 1","pages":"121-127"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bangladesh Journal of Otorhinolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3329/bjo.v26i2.50613","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the efficacy of coblation tonsillectomy and dissection tonsillectomy regarding the duration of surgery, amount of intraoperative bleeding, postoperative pain, recovery time and complications. Methods: 50 patients aged 5-30 years with chronic tonsillitis who underwent tonsillectomy operation were randomly divided into two groups. One group underwent coblation tonsillectomy while other group with dissection tonsillectomy. Chronic tonsillitis patients with adenoid hypertrophy and Otitis media with effusion were excluded by diagnostic nasal endoscopy, imaging and audiometry. All patient were examined regularly after surgery for 10 days to assess the postoperative morbidity and efficacy of both coblation and dissection methods. Duration of surgery, amount of intraoperative bleeding, recovery time, postoperative pain& requirement of analgesics, time required to regain normal diet & activityand complication were assessed. Result: Comparing the coblation tonsillectomy to cold dissection group the mean duration of surgery was 9.7 versus 18.4 minutes, the amount of intra operative bleeding 10.62 versus 28.72 milliliter. The difference on the postoperative pain scale, requirement of analgesics, condition of the tonsillar fossa, time required to regain normal diet & activity between two groups were statistically significant. Conclusion: In our study patient underwent coblation tonsillectomy providing a near bloodless field, minimum operating time, less postoperative pain, quicker return to normal diet, normal activity and less use of analgesics than patients underwent dissection tonsillectomy. Postoperative morbidity and complications were lower as compared to conventional cold dissection technique. Bangladesh J Otorhinolaryngol; October 2020; 26(2): 121-127
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
消融扁桃体切除术与夹层扁桃体切除术的比较研究
目的:比较消融扁桃体切除术与夹层扁桃体切除术在手术时间、术中出血量、术后疼痛、恢复时间及并发症等方面的疗效。方法:50例5 ~ 30岁行扁桃体切除术的慢性扁桃体炎患者随机分为两组。一组行消融扁桃体切除术,另一组行夹层扁桃体切除术。慢性扁桃体炎伴腺样体肥大及中耳炎伴积液者经诊断性鼻内窥镜、影像学及听力学检查排除。所有患者术后10天定期检查,以评估消融和剥离方法的术后发病率和疗效。评估手术时间、术中出血量、恢复时间、术后疼痛及镇痛药需求、恢复正常饮食及活动所需时间及并发症。结果:消融扁桃体切除术组与冷剥离组比较,平均手术时间9.7 min vs . 18.4 min,术中出血量10.62 ml vs . 28.72 ml。两组患者术后疼痛程度、镇痛药需求、扁桃体窝状况、恢复正常饮食活动所需时间差异均有统计学意义。结论:在我们的研究中,与分离扁桃体切除术患者相比,消融扁桃体切除术患者提供了一个接近无血的区域,手术时间最短,术后疼痛更少,更快恢复正常饮食,正常活动和更少使用止痛药。与传统冷解剖技术相比,术后发病率和并发症均较低。孟加拉国J耳鼻咽喉;2020年10月;26 (2): 121 - 127
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊最新文献
Prevalence of Recurrence in Early Tongue Cancer T1 or T2 with or Without Neck Dissection A Case of Familial Hypocalciuric Hypercalcemia Comparative Study of Temporalis Fascial Graft Medial or Lateral to Handle of Malleus in Tympanoplasty Pathophysiological Effect of Enlarged Adenoid on Middle Ear in Children Repair of Surgical Defect by Pectoralis Major Flap Versus Free Radial Forearm Flap in Buccal Carcinoma: Assessment of Quality of Life
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1