Coblation versus cold dissection in paediatric tonsillectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

M. U. Ahmad, A. N. Wardak, Tom Hampton, M. R.S. Siddiqui, I. Street

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Cold dissection is the most commonly used tonsillectomy technique, with low post-operative haemorrhage rates. Coblation is an alternative technique that may cause less pain, but could have higher post-operative haemorrhage rates.Objective This study evaluated the peri-operative outcomes in paediatric tonsillectomy patients by comparing coblation and cold dissection techniques.Methods A systematic review was conducted of all comparative studies of paediatric coblation and cold dissection tonsillectomy, up to December 2018. Any studies with adults were excluded. Outcomes such as pain, operative time, and intra-operative, primary and secondary haemorrhages were recorded.Results Seven studies contributed to the summative outcome. Coblation tonsillectomy appeared to result in less pain, less intra-operative blood loss (p < 0.01) and a shorter operative time (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference between the two groups for post-operative haemorrhage (p > 0.05).Conclusion The coblation tonsillectomy technique may offer better peri-operative outcomes when compared to cold dissection, and should therefore be offered in paediatric cases, before cold dissection tonsillectomy.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)197-204
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Laryngology and Otology
Volume134
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2020
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Dissection
  • Hemorrhage
  • Pain
  • Pediatrics
  • Radiofrequency Ablation
  • Tonsillectomy

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Coblation versus cold dissection in paediatric tonsillectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this