Comparison of Conventional Curettage Adenoidectomy Versus Endoscopic Powered Adenoidectomy: A Randomised Single-Blind Study

Globally adenoidectomy is increasingly being performed in isolation for children who have middle ear effusion or chronic otitis media, chronic rhinosinusitis and nasopharyngeal obstruction causing sleep apnoea and mouth breathing. Several techniques have been described lately including endoscopic powered adenoidectomy with debrider. The present study was undertaken to compare the effectiveness of endoscopic powered adenoidectomy (EA) with respect to conventional adenoidectomy (CA). It is a prospective study of 60 patients requiring adenoidectomy consisting of 33 males and 27 females randomized into group A with 30 patients undergoing conventional adenoidectomy with curette and 30 patients undergoing endoscopic powered adenoidectomy with micro-debrider. The demographic data (age, sex, adenoid hypertrophy grade assessed by Clemens and Mcmurray scale) in both groups were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). However, significant differences were observed in mean operative time of both groups (CA-29.12 ± 6.70, EA-37.80 ± 6.90 min, p < 0.05). The intra-operative blood volume loss was 21.30 ± 5.80 ml, 28.24 ± 6.93 ml in CA and EA respectively. No significant difference was seen in post-operative pain assessed by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (p-0.39). Complete removal of adenoids was seen in 83.3% cases with EA versus 53.3% with CA (p < 0.05). The residual adenoids noted after the CA and EA in Grade I was 23.3% and 13.3% respectively while in CA, grade II with 16.7% and grade III with 6.7% cases had residual adenoids. Injury to surrounding structure was seen in 16.7% and 10% of CA and EA respectively. However, no difference in complication rate was observed between the study groups (p > 0.05). We conclude that endoscopic powered adenoidectomy is more complete, accurate, with less post-operative pain and lower incidence of recurrence in comparison with conventional adenoidectomy.