Harmonic Scalpel Tonsillectomy Versus Coblation Tonsillectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Aim This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy of coblation versus harmonic scalpel methods among patients undergoing tonsillectomy. Methods PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Scie...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Indian journal of otolaryngology, and head, and neck surgery and head, and neck surgery, 2023-12, Vol.75 (4), p.3621-3627 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 3627 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 3621 |
container_title | Indian journal of otolaryngology, and head, and neck surgery |
container_volume | 75 |
creator | Albazee, Ebraheem Hussain, Salman Abduljabbar, Aysha AlHajri, Maisem Tariq Alsakka, Mahmoud Abdelaziz Abu-Zaid, Ahmed |
description | Aim
This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy of coblation versus harmonic scalpel methods among patients undergoing tonsillectomy.
Methods
PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were systematically screened from inception until October 2022. The outcomes were summarized as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference/standardized mean difference (MD/SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) in a random-effects model.
Results
Six RCTs were analyzed, encompassing a sum of 461 patients (harmonic scalpel = 233 patients and coblation = 228 patients). The overall quality assessment was low risk of bias in two RCTs, some concerns of bias in three RCTs, and high risk of bias in one RCT. There was no significant difference between harmonic scalpel and coblation groups regarding the mean operative time (n = 6 RCTs, MD=-7.45 min, 95% CI [-15.26, 0.01], p = 0.06) mean intraoperative blood loss (n = 5 RCTs, MD=-36.03 ml, 95% CI [-77.46, 5.41], p = 0.09), and rate of postoperative hemorrhage (n = 5 RCTs, RR = 0.59, 95% CI [0.25, 1.39], p = 0.23). The overall postoperative pain score was significantly reduced in favor of the coblation group compared with the harmonic scalpel group (n = 5 RCTs, MD = 0.40, 95% CI [0.10, 0.69], p = 0.009)”.
Conclusions
The harmonic scalpel and coblation techniques share equal efficacy among patients undergoing tonsillectomy. The reduction in postoperative pain score provided by the coblation method is not clinically meaningful in clinical practice. Additional RCTs are needed to consolidate the power and quality of the presented evidence. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s12070-023-04022-7 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10646007</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2891754727</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c431t-92e162f0476021678c07ceb4d3a218560b7aabd56f0752a46c1fed6d53c1300e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUFv1DAQhS0EokvhD3BAlrhwMYztxN5wQasVUKQipHbhajnOpLhy4sVOipYzPxxvtxTKgdNI8z4_z8wj5CmHlxxAv8pcgAYGQjKoQAim75EFNFoyrUHfJwshJGdSN-qIPMr5EkDWXMNDclR6utINLMjPE5uGOHpHz50NWwx0E8fsQ0A3xWFHv2DKc6br2AY7-TjelV_TFT3f5QmHIjp6hlcev1M7dvQjTpatRht22Wcae3pWunHwP7ArZuOUYvHo6CZ5G_Jj8qAvBZ_c1GPy-d3bzfqEnX56_2G9OmWuknxijUCuRA-VViC40ksH2mFbddIKvqwVtNratqtVD7oWtlKO99iprpaOSwCUx-TNwXc7twN2DsscNpht8oNNOxOtN3eV0X81F_HKcFCVKicvDi9uHFL8NmOezOCzwxDsiHHORiwbrutKiz36_B_0Ms6pXOSagrLFsq4KJQ6USzHnhP3tNBzMPmVzSNmUlM11ymZv_ezvPW6f_I61APIA5CKNF5j-_P0f219AUrTI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2890047854</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Harmonic Scalpel Tonsillectomy Versus Coblation Tonsillectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials</title><source>PMC (PubMed Central)</source><source>Springer Journals</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Albazee, Ebraheem ; Hussain, Salman ; Abduljabbar, Aysha ; AlHajri, Maisem Tariq ; Alsakka, Mahmoud Abdelaziz ; Abu-Zaid, Ahmed</creator><creatorcontrib>Albazee, Ebraheem ; Hussain, Salman ; Abduljabbar, Aysha ; AlHajri, Maisem Tariq ; Alsakka, Mahmoud Abdelaziz ; Abu-Zaid, Ahmed</creatorcontrib><description>Aim
This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy of coblation versus harmonic scalpel methods among patients undergoing tonsillectomy.
Methods
PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were systematically screened from inception until October 2022. The outcomes were summarized as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference/standardized mean difference (MD/SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) in a random-effects model.
Results
Six RCTs were analyzed, encompassing a sum of 461 patients (harmonic scalpel = 233 patients and coblation = 228 patients). The overall quality assessment was low risk of bias in two RCTs, some concerns of bias in three RCTs, and high risk of bias in one RCT. There was no significant difference between harmonic scalpel and coblation groups regarding the mean operative time (n = 6 RCTs, MD=-7.45 min, 95% CI [-15.26, 0.01], p = 0.06) mean intraoperative blood loss (n = 5 RCTs, MD=-36.03 ml, 95% CI [-77.46, 5.41], p = 0.09), and rate of postoperative hemorrhage (n = 5 RCTs, RR = 0.59, 95% CI [0.25, 1.39], p = 0.23). The overall postoperative pain score was significantly reduced in favor of the coblation group compared with the harmonic scalpel group (n = 5 RCTs, MD = 0.40, 95% CI [0.10, 0.69], p = 0.009)”.
Conclusions
The harmonic scalpel and coblation techniques share equal efficacy among patients undergoing tonsillectomy. The reduction in postoperative pain score provided by the coblation method is not clinically meaningful in clinical practice. Additional RCTs are needed to consolidate the power and quality of the presented evidence.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2231-3796</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 0973-7707</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s12070-023-04022-7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37974790</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New Delhi: Springer India</publisher><subject>Clinical trials ; Head and Neck Surgery ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Original ; Original Article ; Otorhinolaryngology ; Systematic review</subject><ispartof>Indian journal of otolaryngology, and head, and neck surgery, 2023-12, Vol.75 (4), p.3621-3627</ispartof><rights>Association of Otolaryngologists of India 2023. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c431t-92e162f0476021678c07ceb4d3a218560b7aabd56f0752a46c1fed6d53c1300e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c431t-92e162f0476021678c07ceb4d3a218560b7aabd56f0752a46c1fed6d53c1300e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2286-2181</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10646007/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10646007/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37974790$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Albazee, Ebraheem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hussain, Salman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abduljabbar, Aysha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>AlHajri, Maisem Tariq</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alsakka, Mahmoud Abdelaziz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abu-Zaid, Ahmed</creatorcontrib><title>Harmonic Scalpel Tonsillectomy Versus Coblation Tonsillectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials</title><title>Indian journal of otolaryngology, and head, and neck surgery</title><addtitle>Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg</addtitle><addtitle>Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg</addtitle><description>Aim
This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy of coblation versus harmonic scalpel methods among patients undergoing tonsillectomy.
Methods
PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were systematically screened from inception until October 2022. The outcomes were summarized as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference/standardized mean difference (MD/SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) in a random-effects model.
Results
Six RCTs were analyzed, encompassing a sum of 461 patients (harmonic scalpel = 233 patients and coblation = 228 patients). The overall quality assessment was low risk of bias in two RCTs, some concerns of bias in three RCTs, and high risk of bias in one RCT. There was no significant difference between harmonic scalpel and coblation groups regarding the mean operative time (n = 6 RCTs, MD=-7.45 min, 95% CI [-15.26, 0.01], p = 0.06) mean intraoperative blood loss (n = 5 RCTs, MD=-36.03 ml, 95% CI [-77.46, 5.41], p = 0.09), and rate of postoperative hemorrhage (n = 5 RCTs, RR = 0.59, 95% CI [0.25, 1.39], p = 0.23). The overall postoperative pain score was significantly reduced in favor of the coblation group compared with the harmonic scalpel group (n = 5 RCTs, MD = 0.40, 95% CI [0.10, 0.69], p = 0.009)”.
Conclusions
The harmonic scalpel and coblation techniques share equal efficacy among patients undergoing tonsillectomy. The reduction in postoperative pain score provided by the coblation method is not clinically meaningful in clinical practice. Additional RCTs are needed to consolidate the power and quality of the presented evidence.</description><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Head and Neck Surgery</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Otorhinolaryngology</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><issn>2231-3796</issn><issn>0973-7707</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kUFv1DAQhS0EokvhD3BAlrhwMYztxN5wQasVUKQipHbhajnOpLhy4sVOipYzPxxvtxTKgdNI8z4_z8wj5CmHlxxAv8pcgAYGQjKoQAim75EFNFoyrUHfJwshJGdSN-qIPMr5EkDWXMNDclR6utINLMjPE5uGOHpHz50NWwx0E8fsQ0A3xWFHv2DKc6br2AY7-TjelV_TFT3f5QmHIjp6hlcev1M7dvQjTpatRht22Wcae3pWunHwP7ArZuOUYvHo6CZ5G_Jj8qAvBZ_c1GPy-d3bzfqEnX56_2G9OmWuknxijUCuRA-VViC40ksH2mFbddIKvqwVtNratqtVD7oWtlKO99iprpaOSwCUx-TNwXc7twN2DsscNpht8oNNOxOtN3eV0X81F_HKcFCVKicvDi9uHFL8NmOezOCzwxDsiHHORiwbrutKiz36_B_0Ms6pXOSagrLFsq4KJQ6USzHnhP3tNBzMPmVzSNmUlM11ymZv_ezvPW6f_I61APIA5CKNF5j-_P0f219AUrTI</recordid><startdate>20231201</startdate><enddate>20231201</enddate><creator>Albazee, Ebraheem</creator><creator>Hussain, Salman</creator><creator>Abduljabbar, Aysha</creator><creator>AlHajri, Maisem Tariq</creator><creator>Alsakka, Mahmoud Abdelaziz</creator><creator>Abu-Zaid, Ahmed</creator><general>Springer India</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2286-2181</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20231201</creationdate><title>Harmonic Scalpel Tonsillectomy Versus Coblation Tonsillectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials</title><author>Albazee, Ebraheem ; Hussain, Salman ; Abduljabbar, Aysha ; AlHajri, Maisem Tariq ; Alsakka, Mahmoud Abdelaziz ; Abu-Zaid, Ahmed</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c431t-92e162f0476021678c07ceb4d3a218560b7aabd56f0752a46c1fed6d53c1300e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Head and Neck Surgery</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Otorhinolaryngology</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Albazee, Ebraheem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hussain, Salman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abduljabbar, Aysha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>AlHajri, Maisem Tariq</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alsakka, Mahmoud Abdelaziz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abu-Zaid, Ahmed</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Indian journal of otolaryngology, and head, and neck surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Albazee, Ebraheem</au><au>Hussain, Salman</au><au>Abduljabbar, Aysha</au><au>AlHajri, Maisem Tariq</au><au>Alsakka, Mahmoud Abdelaziz</au><au>Abu-Zaid, Ahmed</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Harmonic Scalpel Tonsillectomy Versus Coblation Tonsillectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials</atitle><jtitle>Indian journal of otolaryngology, and head, and neck surgery</jtitle><stitle>Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg</stitle><addtitle>Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg</addtitle><date>2023-12-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>75</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>3621</spage><epage>3627</epage><pages>3621-3627</pages><issn>2231-3796</issn><eissn>0973-7707</eissn><abstract>Aim
This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy of coblation versus harmonic scalpel methods among patients undergoing tonsillectomy.
Methods
PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were systematically screened from inception until October 2022. The outcomes were summarized as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference/standardized mean difference (MD/SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) in a random-effects model.
Results
Six RCTs were analyzed, encompassing a sum of 461 patients (harmonic scalpel = 233 patients and coblation = 228 patients). The overall quality assessment was low risk of bias in two RCTs, some concerns of bias in three RCTs, and high risk of bias in one RCT. There was no significant difference between harmonic scalpel and coblation groups regarding the mean operative time (n = 6 RCTs, MD=-7.45 min, 95% CI [-15.26, 0.01], p = 0.06) mean intraoperative blood loss (n = 5 RCTs, MD=-36.03 ml, 95% CI [-77.46, 5.41], p = 0.09), and rate of postoperative hemorrhage (n = 5 RCTs, RR = 0.59, 95% CI [0.25, 1.39], p = 0.23). The overall postoperative pain score was significantly reduced in favor of the coblation group compared with the harmonic scalpel group (n = 5 RCTs, MD = 0.40, 95% CI [0.10, 0.69], p = 0.009)”.
Conclusions
The harmonic scalpel and coblation techniques share equal efficacy among patients undergoing tonsillectomy. The reduction in postoperative pain score provided by the coblation method is not clinically meaningful in clinical practice. Additional RCTs are needed to consolidate the power and quality of the presented evidence.</abstract><cop>New Delhi</cop><pub>Springer India</pub><pmid>37974790</pmid><doi>10.1007/s12070-023-04022-7</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2286-2181</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2231-3796 |
ispartof | Indian journal of otolaryngology, and head, and neck surgery, 2023-12, Vol.75 (4), p.3621-3627 |
issn | 2231-3796 0973-7707 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10646007 |
source | PMC (PubMed Central); Springer Journals; EZB Electronic Journals Library |
subjects | Clinical trials Head and Neck Surgery Medicine Medicine & Public Health Original Original Article Otorhinolaryngology Systematic review |
title | Harmonic Scalpel Tonsillectomy Versus Coblation Tonsillectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-14T17%3A43%3A39IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Harmonic%20Scalpel%20Tonsillectomy%20Versus%20Coblation%20Tonsillectomy:%20A%20Systematic%20Review%20and%20Meta-Analysis%20of%20Randomized%20Controlled%20Trials&rft.jtitle=Indian%20journal%20of%20otolaryngology,%20and%20head,%20and%20neck%20surgery&rft.au=Albazee,%20Ebraheem&rft.date=2023-12-01&rft.volume=75&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=3621&rft.epage=3627&rft.pages=3621-3627&rft.issn=2231-3796&rft.eissn=0973-7707&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s12070-023-04022-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2891754727%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2890047854&rft_id=info:pmid/37974790&rfr_iscdi=true |