The Comparison between Microdebrider Assisted Adenoidectomy and Coblation Adenoidectomy: Analyzing the Intraoperative...

Microdebrider adenoidectomy and Coblation adenoidectomy are the two new techniques available for adenoidectomy these days. The advantages of endoscopic power assisted adenoidectomy over cold steel adenoidectomy has been well established in the literature. As adenoidectomy is one of the most common paediatric surgical procedure there is always a concern to improve the outcomes and make postoperative experience more pleasant for the paediatric population. Cost difference between a coblator wand and microdebrider blade is always a confounding factor in decision making. The present study was conducted to compare both the techniques of adenoidectomy in terms of certain intraoperative and post operative parameters. The present study was a prospective randomized single blind study conducted in a university hospital on 140 subjects. The patients diagnosed with chronic adenoiditis grade 3-4 were randomly allocated in two groups after following the exclusion and inclusion criteria. the adenoidectomy in two groups; Microdebrider group and Coblation group were compared in terms of intraoperative time, post operative pain score; intraoperative bleeding, surgical field and some common complications. The data was analysed for significance by various statistical tests. The average adenoid size operated in both groups was Grade 3. The intraoperative time taken to complete the procedure in group A was 12.78 ± 3.8 min and in group B was 22 ± 3.3 min with p value < 0.05. There was statistically significant difference in grade of Intraoperative Bleeding in both groups with mean grade of intraoperative bleeding being 1.4 ± 1.04 in group B and 3.5 ± 0.9 in Group A. The surgical field was poor to average in 33 cases (n = 70) in group A as compared to only 1 case (n = 70) in group B; the difference being statistically significant. The average post-operative pain score was 2.69 ± 0.99 and 1.17 ± 1.1 after post-operatively 24 h and 72 h respectively in group B; 7.14 ± 0.99 and 4.08 ± 1.42 respectively in group A. The p value for the same was < 0.05. However there was no statistically significant difference between two groups in terms of any complications or completeness of removal. Though both the techniques are highly efficacious in adenoid removal and low complication rate in our study but still more studies with large sample size are encouraged to validate these results and establish the comparative efficacy of both the techniques in terms of the intraoperative parameters as well as post-operative recovery along with recurrence rates.