Radiofrequency ablation versus electrocautery in tonsillectomy
The objective of this study was to compare the safety, difficulty of removal, and postoperative pain profile of radiofrequency ablation versus standard electrocautery removal of tonsils. A prospective, blinded study was designed to remove 1 tonsil with each of the 2 methods. Time of operation, estim...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery Vol. 130; no. 3; pp. 300 - 305 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Los Angeles, CA
Mosby, Inc
01-03-2004
SAGE Publications |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | The objective of this study was to compare the safety, difficulty of removal, and postoperative pain profile of radiofrequency ablation versus standard electrocautery removal of tonsils.
A prospective, blinded study was designed to remove 1 tonsil with each of the 2 methods. Time of operation, estimated blood loss, difficulty of operation, postoperative pain, rate of postoperative hemorrhage, and the patient's preferred technique were evaluated.
The operating time was significantly longer (
P < 0.007) and the patients reported significantly less pain (
P < 0.001) with radiofrequency ablation. There were no differences in blood loss, difficulty of operation, or postoperative hemorrhage rates. The patients preferred the radiofrequency ablation technique (
P < 0.001).
Radiofrequency ablation is a viable method to remove tonsillar tissue. Operating time for this procedure will likely decrease with experience. There was significantly less pain reported with radiofrequency ablation compared with standard electrocautery. |
|---|---|
| Bibliography: | Data from this study were presented in part at the Tripler Army Medical Center James W. Bass Resident Research Competition and at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the Pacific Coast Oto‐Ophthalmological Society (PCOOS). The paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Denver, CO, September 9–12, 2001. This study was in no way supported financially by the ArthroCare Corporation. All instruments were purchased at the standard Department of Defense price schedule. The authors have no financial interest in the ArthroCare Corporation. This is to certify that the above titled work was prepared and written by United States Government employees as part of their official duties and, therefore, cannot be copyrighted and may be copied without restriction. The undersigned warrant that the article is original, does not infringe upon the copyright or other proprietary right of any third party, is not under consideration by another journal, and has not been published previously. The authors confirm that they have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript. The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not reflect official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the US Government. ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 content type line 23 |
| ISSN: | 0194-5998 1097-6817 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.otohns.2003.09.024 |