4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Bipolar scissors versus cold dissection tonsillectomy: A prospective, randomized, multi-unit study

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 111, 期 12, 页码 2178-2182

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00005537-200112000-00020

关键词

diathermy; dissection; cold; tonsillectomy; pain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate bipolar scissors tonsillectomy by comparing it with traditional cold dissection tonsillectomy. Study Design: A prospective, randomized, multi-unit study. Settings: Belfast City Hospital, Royal Victoria Hospital Belfast, and Ulster Hospital Dundonald. Patients: Two hundred consecutive patients undergoing tonsillectomy for recurrent or chronic tonsillitis between March 2000 and September 2000. Outcome Measures: (1) Intraoperative bleeding, (2) operative time, (3) postoperative pain, and (4) complication rates, including primary and secondary hemorrhage. Results: Seventeen patients were excluded from the study for various reasons. The mean age of the study population was 22 years (range, 10-54 y). Seventy-two percent of patients were female. Twenty-seven percent of patients were children aged 16 years or under. Median intraoperative blood loss was 5 mL for bipolar scissors tonsillectomy and 115 mL for cold dissection tonsillectomy (P < .001). The mean operative time was 13 minutes for bipolar scissors tonsillectomy compared with 20 minutes for the cold dissection method (P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in the pain scores between the two methods (independent samples t = 1.35; P > .05). The overall primary hemorrhage rate was 2.1%, whereas the overall secondary hemorrhage rate was 16.9%. The hospital readmission rate was 10.3%. The primary and secondary hemorrhage rates were unaffected by the surgical method. Conclusions: Bipolar scissors tonsillectomy is a safe technique with a similar morbidity to the cold dissection method. Its use is associated with a significant decrease in both surgical time and blood loss compared with the cold dissection method.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据