A prospective study comparing PlasmaKnife with bipolar dissection tonsillectomy: A preliminary communication of an emerging technology

4Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: To clinically evaluate and compare the PlasmaKnife to bipolar electrocautery in paediatric tonsillectomy. Design: Prospective comparitive non-randomised study. Setting: Central London teaching hospital with tertiary referrals. Participants: Forty-three patients aged 3-12 years with recurrent tonsillitis or obstructive adenotonsillar hypertrophy awaiting a tonsillectomy were recruited into the study. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome was throat, ear and swallowing pain scores over 2 weeks. Secondary measures included: return to normal diet, return to normal activity, analgesic requirements, operation time and intraoperative blood loss. Results: Surgical dissection was similar between the two groups with minimal blood loss and comparable overall operative times. Median throat pain scores suggest PlasmaKnife to be less painful in the early postoperative period (at 8 h, P < 0.005) but, overall, did not quite reach statistical significance (Mann-Whitney U-test). PlasmaKnife was similar to bipolar in all other measured categories. During the study, three secondary bleeds occurred in the PlasmaKnife group and all were managed conservatively. Conclusion: PlasmaKnife is a safe new technology with similar outcome to the established bipolar technique. This preliminary study finds PlasmaKnife to be an interesting instrument and warrants a larger randomised study to truly evaluate the potential advantages of lowered pain and early recovery attributed to this emerging technology. © 2008 The Authors.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Singh, A., Stephens, J., Ghufoor, K., & Sandhu, G. (2008). A prospective study comparing PlasmaKnife with bipolar dissection tonsillectomy: A preliminary communication of an emerging technology. Clinical Otolaryngology, 33(3), 277–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-4486.2007.01591.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free