Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

Modern Technology–Assisted vs Conventional Tonsillectomy

Modern Technology–Assisted vs Conventional Tonsillectomy ORIGINAL ARTICLE Modern Technology–Assisted vs Conventional Tonsillectomy A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Vangelis G. Alexiou, MD, MSc; Mary Sheryll Salazar-Salvia, MD, MSc; Paul N. Jervis, BDS, FRCS; Matthew E. Falagas, MD, MSc, DSc Objective: To systematically review evidence regard- group, operative time was significantly shorter (WMD), ing modern technology–assisted tonsillectomy pertain- −4.09 minutes; 95% CI, −7.43 to −0.75 minutes; 760 pa- ing to operative time, intraoperative and postoperative tients), perioperative bleeding was significantly less (SMD, bleeding, postoperative pain, and other outcomes. −1.67; −2.80 to −0.53; 355 patients), and postoperative bleeding was significantly less (odds ratio, 0.28; 0.13 to 0.61; Design: A systematic search for randomized controlled 792 patients). Pain on the first and seventh postoperative trials comparing total tonsillectomies performed using days was significantly less in the VSS group (SMD, −1.73; vessel sealing systems (VSS), Harmonic Scalpel (HS), or 95% CI, −3.07 to −0.39; 740 patients; and SMD, −1.46; −2.35 radiofrequency ablation (ie, Coblation) with the con- to −0.57; 684 patients; respectively). For the HS group com- ventional technique of cold steel and/or electrocautery pared with the CS/EC group, the only studied outcome that dissection (CS/EC). Estimation of odds ratios and 95% differed significantly was perioperative bleeding, which http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JAMA Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery American Medical Association

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/modern-technology-assisted-vs-conventional-tonsillectomy-64Mj7ORTce
Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright 2011 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.
ISSN
2168-6181
eISSN
2168-619X
DOI
10.1001/archoto.2011.93
pmid
21690508
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

ORIGINAL ARTICLE Modern Technology–Assisted vs Conventional Tonsillectomy A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Vangelis G. Alexiou, MD, MSc; Mary Sheryll Salazar-Salvia, MD, MSc; Paul N. Jervis, BDS, FRCS; Matthew E. Falagas, MD, MSc, DSc Objective: To systematically review evidence regard- group, operative time was significantly shorter (WMD), ing modern technology–assisted tonsillectomy pertain- −4.09 minutes; 95% CI, −7.43 to −0.75 minutes; 760 pa- ing to operative time, intraoperative and postoperative tients), perioperative bleeding was significantly less (SMD, bleeding, postoperative pain, and other outcomes. −1.67; −2.80 to −0.53; 355 patients), and postoperative bleeding was significantly less (odds ratio, 0.28; 0.13 to 0.61; Design: A systematic search for randomized controlled 792 patients). Pain on the first and seventh postoperative trials comparing total tonsillectomies performed using days was significantly less in the VSS group (SMD, −1.73; vessel sealing systems (VSS), Harmonic Scalpel (HS), or 95% CI, −3.07 to −0.39; 740 patients; and SMD, −1.46; −2.35 radiofrequency ablation (ie, Coblation) with the con- to −0.57; 684 patients; respectively). For the HS group com- ventional technique of cold steel and/or electrocautery pared with the CS/EC group, the only studied outcome that dissection (CS/EC). Estimation of odds ratios and 95% differed significantly was perioperative bleeding, which

Journal

JAMA Otolaryngology - Head & Neck SurgeryAmerican Medical Association

Published: Jun 1, 2011

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$499/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month