Conventional curettage adenoidectomy vs endoscopic microdebrider adenoidectomy - A comparative study

Area of Science:

• Otolaryngology
• Surgical Techniques
• Pediatric Surgery

Background:

• Adenoidectomy is a common Ear, Nose, and Throat (ENT) surgical procedure.
• Evaluating endoscopic powered adenoidectomy as an alternative to traditional curettage.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the efficacy and outcomes of endoscopic micro-debrider adenoidectomy (EMA) versus conventional curettage adenoidectomy (CA).

Main Methods:

• A randomized study of 240 patients undergoing adenoidectomy.
• Group I: Conventional Curettage Adenoidectomy (CA).
• Group II: Endoscopic Micro-debrider Adenoidectomy (EMA).

Main Results:

• EMA showed complete resection in most cases (93.3%), while CA left residual tissue in 46.7% of patients.
• Post-operative pain scores were significantly lower with EMA (0.9) compared to CA (3.9).
• CA had shorter operative times (31.4 min) and less blood loss (64.4 mL) than EMA (55.7 min, 86.7 mL).

Conclusions:

• Endoscopic powered adenoidectomy (EMA) is a safe and effective method for adenoid removal.
• EMA excels in complete resection, accuracy, and reducing post-operative pain.
• Conventional curettage adenoidectomy (CA) is advantageous for shorter surgical duration and minimized intraoperative bleeding.