Endoscopic microdebrider-assisted versus conventional curette adenoidectomy in paediatric adenoid hypertrophy: a randomized controlled study

M. Faiz Ur Rahman; Arzoo Faiz; Sabahat Fatema Khan

doi:10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20263515

Authors

M. Faiz Ur Rahman Department of Otorhinolaryngology (ENT), Parbhani Medical College, RP Hospital and Research Institute, Parbhani, Maharashtra, India
Arzoo Faiz Parbhani College of Physiotherapy, RP Hospital and Research Institute, Parbhani, Maharashtra, India
Sabahat Fatema Khan Department of Pathology, MIMSR Medical College, Latur, Maharashtra, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20263515

Keywords:

Adenoidectomy, Adenoid Hypertrophy, Endoscopy, Microdebrider, Airway Obstruction, Child

Abstract

Background: To compare the clinical and endoscopic outcomes of endoscopic microdebrider-assisted adenoidectomy with conventional curette adenoidectomy in paediatric patients with symptomatic adenoid hypertrophy.

Methods: This prospective randomized controlled study was conducted in 50 children aged 5–15 years with symptomatic adenoid hypertrophy. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups of 25 each. Group A underwent endoscopic microdebrider-assisted adenoidectomy, whereas Group B underwent conventional curette adenoidectomy. Clinical symptoms, endoscopic adenoid grading, and nasal airway patency were assessed preoperatively and at postoperative days 15 and 30. Statistical analysis was performed using appropriate parametric and non-parametric tests, with p<0.05 considered statistically significant.

Results: Complete resolution of mouth breathing, snoring, recurrent upper respiratory tract infections, and otologic symptoms was observed in all patients undergoing microdebrider-assisted adenoidectomy, whereas residual symptoms persisted in the conventional curette group. Endoscopic evaluation demonstrated complete conversion to Grade I adenoid tissue in all patients in Group A, while residual Grade II hypertrophy was observed in 44% of patients in Group B. Mean nasal airway patency improved from 39% to 92% in the microdebrider group compared with 32% to 80% in the conventional group. Both groups showed statistically significant postoperative improvement (p<0.05), with significantly better outcomes in the microdebrider-assisted group.

Conclusions: Endoscopic microdebrider-assisted adenoidectomy provides superior symptomatic relief, greater improvement in nasal airway patency, and more complete removal of adenoid tissue than conventional curette adenoidectomy. The technique is safe, effective, and offers important clinical advantages in the surgical management of paediatric adenoid hypertrophy.

References

Ahmad Z, Krüger K, Lautermann J, Lippert B, Tenenbaum T, Tigges M, et al. Adenoid hypertrophy—diagnosis and treatment: the new S2k guideline. HNO. 2023;71(Suppl 1):67-72.

Schupper AJ, Nation J, Pransky S. Adenoidectomy in children: what is the evidence and what is its role? Curr Otorhinolaryngol Rep. 2018;6(1):64-73.

Koltai PJ, Chan J, Younes A. Power-assisted adenoidectomy: total and partial resection. Laryngoscope. 2002;112(8 Pt 2 Suppl 100):29-31.

Cannon CR, Replogle WH, Schenk MP. Endoscopic-assisted adenoidectomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;121(6):740-4.

Havas T, Lowinger D. Obstructive adenoid tissue: an indication for powered-shaver adenoidectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002;128(7):789-91.

Abo Elmagd EA, Khalifa MS, Abeskharoon BK, El Tahan AA. Comparative study between conventional adenoidectomy and adenoidectomy using micro-debrider. Egypt J Otolaryngol. 2021;37:56.

Wadhera R, Vashist A, Kumar P, Ghai A. Endoscopic adenoidectomy with microdebrider. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2022;74(Suppl 2):1314-8.

Pagella F, Matti E, Colombo A, Giourgos G, Mira E. How we do it: a combined method of traditional curette and power-assisted endoscopic adenoidectomy. Acta Otolaryngol. 2009;129(5):556-9.

Datta R, Singh VP, Deshpal. Conventional versus endoscopic powered adenoidectomy: a comparative study. Med J Armed Forces India. 2009;65(4):308-12.

AlShatti A, Alali AJ, Al-Gilani M. Comparison of traditional curettage to endoscopic techniques in pediatric adenoidectomy: a systematic review of post-operative outcomes. Cureus. 2025;17(12):e99188.

Chisholm EJ, Lew-Gor S, Hajioff D, Caulfield H. Adenoid size assessment: a comparison of palpation, nasendoscopy and mirror examination. Clin Otolaryngol. 2005;30(1):39-41.

Koltai PJ, Kalathia AS, Stanislaw P, Heras HA. Power-assisted adenoidectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997;123(7):685-8.

Cannon CR, Replogle WH, Schenk MP. Endoscopic-assisted adenoidectomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;121(6):740-4.

Murray N, Fitzpatrick P, Guarisco JL. Powered partial adenoidectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002;128(7):792-6.

Clemens J, McMurray JS, Willging JP. Electrocautery versus curette adenoidectomy: comparison of postoperative results. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1998;43(2):115-22.

Finkelstein Y, Wexler DB, Nachmani A, Ophir D. Endoscopic partial adenoidectomy for children with submucous cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002;39(5):479-86.

Shin JJ, Hartnick CJ. Pediatric endoscopic transnasal adenoid ablation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2003;112(6):511-4.

Urík M, Bartoš M, Šikolová S, Jančíková J, Perceová K, Jarkovský J, et al. Risk factors for postoperative bleeding after adenoidectomy. Children (Basel). 2021;8(3):242.

Windfuhr JP, Schloendorff G, Baburi D, Kremer B. Serious post-tonsillectomy hemorrhage with and without lethal outcome in children and adolescents. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2008;72(7):1029-40.