Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Adenoidectomy techniques: UK survey

  • G Dhanasekar (a1), A Liapi (a1) and N Turner (a1)

Abstract

Objectives:

To determine (1) the preferred adenoidectomy technique among UK ENT consultants, and (2) the need for revision adenoidectomy following the standard technique of blind curettage with digital palpation.

Method:

Postal questionnaire.

Participants:

We included 539 consultant members of the ENT–UK.

Main outcome measures:

Commonly used adenoidectomy techniques, and whether revision adenoidectomy was considered a problem.

Results:

The response rate was 66.6 per cent (359 respondents). Twenty-seven respondents did not perform adenoidectomy, while 332 did. A total of 312/332 respondents (94 per cent) believed that adenoidectomy had a role in the treatment of chronic serous otitis media. The majority of respondents (232/332; 69.9 per cent) reported examining the postnasal space digitally at adenoidectomy. The preferred routine adenoidectomy technique was blind curettage for 263 respondents (79.2 per cent), suction diathermy ablation for 27 (8.1 per cent) and curettage under direct vision (using a mirror) for 13 (3.9 per cent). In response to the question ‘Do you recognise the need for revision adenoidectomy as a problem?’, 205 (61.7 per cent) respondents replied ‘never’, 39 (11.7 per cent) ‘rarely’, 54 (16.3 per cent) ‘< 2 per cent’ and 36 (10.8 per cent) ‘>2 per cent’.

Conclusions:

The most commonly used adenoidectomy technique in the UK is digital palpation followed by blind curettage, according to this postal questionnaire survey. Few respondents reported performing adenoidectomy under direct vision: only 10 per cent used a mirror during the procedure and only 8 per cent used an endoscope.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Address for correspondence: Mr G Dhanasekar, 6 Woodhayes Croft, Wolverhampton WV10 8PP, UK. Fax: 01902 861022 E-mail: DhanasekarENT@aol.com

Footnotes

Hide All

Presented as a poster at the 13th British Academic Conference in Otolaryngology meeting, 8–10 July 2009, Liverpool, UK.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
1Liapi, A, Dhanasekar, G, Turner, NO. The role of revision adenoidectomy in paediatric otolaryngological practice. J Laryngol Otol 2006;120:219–21
2Bross-Soriano, D, Schimelmitz-Idi, J, Arrieta-Gómez, JR. Endoscopic adenoidectomy; use or abuse of the technology? Cir Cir 2004;72:15–9, 21–2
3Monroy, A, Behar, P, Brodsky, L. Revision adenoidectomy – a retrospective study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2008;72:565–70
4Hartley, BE, Papsin, BC, Albert, DM. Suction diathermy adenoidectomy. Clin Otolaryngol 1998;23:308–9
5Stanislaw, P, Koltai, P, Feustel, P. Comparison of power-assisted adenoidectomy vs. adenoid curette adenoidectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;126:845–9
6Shin, JJ, Hartnick, CJ. Paediatric endoscopic transnasal adenoid ablation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2003;112:511–14
7Skilbeck, CJ, Tweedie, DJ, Lloyd-Thomas, AR, Albert, DM. Suction diathermy for adenoidectomy: complications and risk of recurrence. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2007;71:917–20

Keywords

Adenoidectomy techniques: UK survey

  • G Dhanasekar (a1), A Liapi (a1) and N Turner (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed