Comparative Study Between Conventional Curettage Adenoidectomy Versus Endoscopic Microdebrider Assisted...

Area of Science:

• Otolaryngology
• Surgical Innovation
• Pediatric Surgery

Background:

• Adenoidectomy is a common otolaryngologic procedure.
• High recurrence rates are a significant challenge with conventional methods.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the safety and efficacy of conventional curettage versus endoscopic-assisted microdebrider adenoidectomy.
• To evaluate outcomes including recurrence, operative time, and complications.

Main Methods:

• Prospective comparative parallel randomized controlled trial.
• 42 patients randomized into conventional adenoidectomy (Group A) and endoscopic microdebrider-assisted adenoidectomy (Group B).
• Outcomes assessed included operative time, blood loss, velopharyngeal insufficiency, nasal bleeding, synechiae, and adenoid tissue clearance.

Main Results:

• Endoscopic microdebrider-assisted adenoidectomy achieved complete clearance in all patients, unlike conventional curettage (p < 0.05).
• Conventional adenoidectomy had shorter operative times (16.15 min vs 22.9 min) and less blood loss (35.57 ml vs 37.14 ml).
• Complications included temporary velopharyngeal insufficiency in 4.76% (Group A) and nasal bleed (23.8%) and nasal synechiae (9.52%) in Group B.

Conclusions:

• Endoscopic microdebrider-assisted adenoidectomy ensures complete adenoid tissue removal, reducing recurrence risk.
• Conventional curettage offers faster surgery with less blood loss but a higher likelihood of residual adenoid tissue.
• The choice of technique should balance efficacy in tissue removal against potential operative complications and time.