Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T20:34:40.697Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Diathermy tonsillectomy: comparisons of morbidity following bipolar and monopolar microdissection needle excision

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

A. Akkielah
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, The Royal Hospitals Trust, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, UK.
A. Kalan
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, The Royal Hospitals Trust, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, UK.
G. S. Kenyon*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, The Royal Hospitals Trust, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, UK.
*
Address for correspondence: Mr G. S. Kenyon, Department of Otolaryngology, The Royal Hospitals Trust, St Bartholomew's Hospital, West Smithfield, London EC1A 7BE.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Tonsillectomy is frequently associated with a considerable post-operative morbidity. In some cases reactionary or secondary haemorrhage occurs and all patients suffer a degree of post-operative pain. The use of bipolar diathermy excision has become popular because it reduces intra-operative blood loss, but all diathermy inevitably produces a degree of damage to adjacent normal soft tissues. In turn this inadvertent injury must act to increase the post-operative pain.

Monopolar dissection using a fine tungsten diathermy needle (the Colorado needle) allows sharp dissection at low power levels and in previous studies has been shown to produce a reduction in collateral tissue damage. In this prospective study the morbidity associated with tonsillectomy using this needle was compared to that following a standard bipolar dissection.

Using the monopolar needle produced no enhanced risk of reactionary or secondary haemorrhage while causing significantly less post-operative pain and a reduction in eschar. We believe that excision using this needle preserves the advantages associated with bipolar dissection while reducing local soft tissue damage.

Type
Main Articles
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1997

References

Bluestone, C. D. (1977) Status of tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy. Laryngoscope 87: 12351243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choy, A. T. K., Su, A. P. (1992) Bipolar diathermy or ligation for haemostasis in tonsillectomy? A prospective study on post-operative pain. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 106: 2122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farnworth, T. K., Beals, S. P., Manwaring, K. H., Trepeta, R. W. (1993) Comparison of skin necrosis in rats using a new microdissection electrocautery, standard size needle electrocautery and the Shaw hemostatic scalpel. Annals of Plastic Surgery 31 (2): 164167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goycoolea, M. V., Cubillos, P. M., Martinez, G. C. (1982) Tonsillectomy with a suction coagulator. Laryngoscope 92: 818819.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Handler, S. D., Miller, L., Richmond, K. H., Corso Baranak, C. (1986) Post-tonsillectomy haemorrhage: incidence, prevention and management. Laryngoscopy 96: 12431247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Husband, A. D., Davis, A. (1996) Pain after tonsillectomy. Clinical Otolaryngology 21; 99101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kristensen, S., Tveteras, K. (1984) Post-tonsillectomy haemorrhage: a retrospective study of 1,150 operations. Clinical Otolaryngology 9: 347350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, D. G., St George, C., Granoff, D., Scheiner, E., Imber, P., Mlynarczyk, F. A. (1984) Tonsillectomy – some like it hot. Laryngoscope 94: 677679.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McAuliffe, C. J. (1987) The history of tonsil and adenoid surgery. Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America 20: 415419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weimert, T. A., Babyak, J. W., Bichter, H. J. (1990) Electrodissection tonsillectomy. Archives of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery 116: 186188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed