A Comparison of Revision Adenoidectomy Rates Based on Techniques. Issue 5 (8th February 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sapthavee, Andrew; Bhushan, Bharat; Penn, Edward; Billings, Kathleen R.
• Is Part Of: Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery. Volume 148:Issue 5(2013)
• Page Start: 841
• Page End: 846
• Publication Date: 2013-02-08
• Subjects: revision adenoidectomy -- microdebrider adenoidectomy -- suction bovie adenoidectomy -- adenoidectomy; Head -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Neck -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Otolaryngology -- Periodicals; 617.51
• DOI: 10.1177/0194599813477830
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0194-5998

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: No studies are available specifically comparing revision rates between suction coagulator and microdebrider‐performed adenoidectomies. Our objective was to compare revision adenoidectomy rates between these instrument groups. Study Design: Historical cohort study. Setting: Patients included in this study had surgery at the Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital in Chicago, Illinois, from June 2007 through December 2011. Subjects and Methods: The patients were divided into 2 groups based on technique of adenoidectomy used at the time of initial surgery and the regrowth rate analyzed. Results: During the 4.5‐year study period, the microdebrider was used in 4071 adenoidectomies, and 3328 cases were performed with suction coagulation. There was a revision rate of 0.84% (34 patients) for the microdebrider group. The rate was 1.50% (50 patients) for suction coagulation. This difference was found to be statistically significant on univariate analysis. The suction coagulator group had a younger mean age at initial surgery and a higher incidence of gastroesophageal reflux disease. No difference in revision rates between the 2 groups was noted on multivariate analysis. Conclusion: Symptomatic regrowth of adenoid tissue occurs infrequently. Both suction coagulation and microdebrider methods are commonly used when performing adenoidectomies due to more consistent ease of use in removal of tissue. The incidence of regrowth likely relates to variables other than the technique used, as there was no difference in the regrowth rate between the 2 groups.