ArticleIranian journal of otorhinolaryngology2025
Coblation Adenoidectomy Versus Conventional Adenoidectomy: A Comparative Study of two Different Techniques of Adenoidectomy.
Article in Iranian journal of otorhinolaryngology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Chronic nasal obstruction, frequent respiratory infections, recurrent ear blocks, earaches, and pediatric obstructive sleep apnea may indicate adenoid enlargement, one of the most common conditions encountered in pediatric otorhinolaryngology practice. Adenoidectomy is a simple procedure with certain limitations, which has led to various innovations in surgical techniques in the recent past. The study aimed to compare two different adenoidectomy techniques: the endoscopy-assisted coblation adenoidectomy and the conventional curettage adenoidectomy. Materials and Methods: In this prospective randomized interventional study involving 40 patients, 20 patients in Group A underwent curettage adenoidectomy, and 20 patients in Group B underwent endoscopic coblation adenoidectomy. Complete adenoid tissue removal, surgical blood loss, operative duration, postoperative pain, and recovery time are the outcome measures. Results: Endoscopy-assisted coblation adenoidectomy enabled complete adenoid removal better than conventional adenoidectomy, 15 patients (75%) had complete removal versus 3 patients (15%) in the conventional group (p-value of 0.0003). The mean blood loss was 30 ± 5.60 mL in Group A and 10.75 ± 2.93 mL in Group B (p = 0.0001). The pain score assessed using the visual analog scale was 4 ± 0.44 in Group A and 3 ± 0.36 in Group B (p = 0.0001). The mean time taken for recovery in Group A was 3.14 ± 0.62 days and that in Group B was 2.64 ± 0.64 days (p = 0.001). Conclusions: Coblation adenoidectomy under endoscopic guidance enabled complete adenoid removal, reduction in surgical blood loss and postoperative pain, and shortened recovery time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.