ArticleCureus2025
Efficacy of Powered Intracapsular Tonsillectomy: A Single-Blinded Prospective Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Powered intracapsular tonsillectomy (PIT) is considered a less invasive alternative to conventional extracapsular tonsillectomy (cTE), potentially reducing postoperative pain and complications. However, most prior studies have been retrospective. Objective This study aimed to assess the clinical utility of PIT in comparison to cTE through a single-blind, randomized controlled trial. Methods In this prospective trial (registered with the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ID: JPRN-UMIN000043776), patients undergoing PIT (n = 6) or cTE (n = 5) were evaluated. The primary outcome was postoperative pain measured by the FACES Pain Rating Scale (FRS). Secondary outcomes included analgesic use, dietary intake, and postoperative bleeding. Results The PIT group showed a trend toward lower FRS scores on postoperative days two to four (p = 0.053) and significantly reduced analgesic consumption (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in dietary intake. No postoperative bleeding occurred in either group. Conclusion PIT was associated with significantly lower analgesic use and a trend toward reduced postoperative pain, with no increased risk of bleeding. PIT may be a safe and minimally invasive alternative to cTE, potentially facilitating earlier postoperative dietary advancement.
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.