MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
Conventional curettage adenoidectomy vs endoscopic microdebrider adenoidectomy – A comparative study
Conventional curettage adenoidectomy vs endoscopic microdebrider adenoidectomy – A comparative study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Conventional curettage adenoidectomy vs endoscopic microdebrider adenoidectomy – A comparative study
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Conventional curettage adenoidectomy vs endoscopic microdebrider adenoidectomy – A comparative study
Conventional curettage adenoidectomy vs endoscopic microdebrider adenoidectomy – A comparative study

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Conventional curettage adenoidectomy vs endoscopic microdebrider adenoidectomy – A comparative study
Conventional curettage adenoidectomy vs endoscopic microdebrider adenoidectomy – A comparative study
Journal Article

Conventional curettage adenoidectomy vs endoscopic microdebrider adenoidectomy – A comparative study

2025
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Background Adenoidectomy is a frequently done ENT procedure. The purpose of the current article is to assess endoscopic powered adenoidectomy as a potential replacement for the traditional curettage approach. Methods Two hundred forty consecutive adenoidectomy cases were randomly divided into two groups of one hundred twenty each. Between August 2020 to February 2023 after getting ethical clearance from Institutional Ethical Committee, Group I underwent Conventional Curettage Adenoidectomy (CA), while Group II underwent Endoscopic Micro-debrider Adenoidectomy (EMA). Results Average operative time in CA Group was 31.4 min and in EMA group was 55.7 min. In CA group, mean intraoperative blood loss was 64.4 mL, however, in EMA group, mean blood loss was 86.7 mL (p 0.001). In EMA Group, the resection was consistently complete, with 112 out of 120 cases having an adenoid grade of less than I in post-op. However in the CA group, in 44 (36.7%) of the patients, there was more than 25% remaining adenoid tissue postoperatively and more than 50% remnant adenoid tissue was found in 12 cases (10%) post-op. Post-operative pain was studied with the CA Group demonstrating an average 7 days’ postoperative pain score of 3.90 whereas EMA Group demonstrating an average 7 days’ postoperative pain score of 0.9. Conclusions It was observed that EMA was a secure and reliable tool for adenoidectomy. Endoscopic powered adenoidectomy performed better in the completion of resection, accuracy of resection under vision, collateral damage, and post-operative pain. Contrarily, conventional Curettage adenoidectomy scored higher in terms of shorter surgery times and less intraoperative hemorrhage.