ArticleOTO open
Evaluating a Modified Coblation Technique in Adenoidectomy: A Single-Blind Randomized Study.
Article in OTO open. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the clinical and histopathological advantages of a modified technique-In Saline Coblation Adenoidectomy (ISCA)-over conventional coblation adenoidectomy (CCA) in pediatric patients, with respect to intraoperative efficiency, tissue preservation, and postoperative outcomes. Study Design: This study was designed as a prospective, randomized, single-blind trial. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups, Group A "CCA" and Group B "ISCA," each consisting of 25 children. Following the approval of the Medipol University Ethics Committee, patients who underwent adenoidectomy or adenotonsillectomy were included in the study. Setting: In Group A, adenoid tissue was ablated using the coblator's built-in irrigation system. For Group B, the nasopharynx and, partially, the oral cavity were continuously filled with saline solution delivered via the nasal passage. Excess fluid was aspirated from the mouth using a dedicated suction tip. This ensured that the endoscope and coblator tip remained immersed in saline throughout the procedure. Methods: A prospective, randomized, single-blind study was conducted involving 50 pediatric patients who underwent either conventional coblation (Group A, n = 25) or ISCA (Group B, n = 25). Operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pain scores, and wand-related issues were recorded. Histopathological analysis of adenoid specimens was performed to assess tissue integrity and thermal injury. Patients were followed for 6 to 18 months postoperatively for recurrence and complications. Results: ISCA significantly reduced operative time compared to CCA (24 ± 5.8 minutes vs 33 ± 8.5 minutes; Conclusion: The ISCA technique offers clear clinical advantages over conventional coblation by improving procedural efficiency, minimizing collateral thermal injury, and eliminating wand-related delays. These findings support its wider adoption in high-volume pediatric otolaryngology settings.
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.