Abstract
Objective To compare the outcomes of coblation versus bipolar in pediatric patients undergoing tonsillectomy.
Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines and an electronic search of information was conducted to identify all Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing the outcomes of coblation versus bipolar in pediatric patients undergoing tonsillectomy. Intraoperative bleeding, reactionary hemorrhage, delayed hemorrhage and post-operative pain were primary outcome measures. Secondary outcome measures included return to normal diet, effects on tonsillar bed, operation time and administration of analgesia. Fixed and random effects models were used for the analysis.
Results Seven studies enrolling 1328 patients were identified. There was a significant difference between coblation and bipolar groups in terms of delayed hemorrhage (Odds Ratio [OR] = 0.25, P = 0.0007) and post-operative pain (standardized mean difference [MD] = -2.13, P = 0.0007). Intraoperative bleeding (MD = -43.26, P = 0.11) and reactionary hemorrhage did not show any significant difference. For secondary outcomes, coblation group had improved outcomes in terms of administration of analgesia, diet and tonsillar tissue recovery and thermal damage. No significant difference was reported in terms of operation time.
Conclusions Coblation is a superior option when compared to bipolar technique for pediatric patients undergoing tonsillectomy as it improves post-operative pain and delayed hemorrhage and does not worsen intraoperative bleeding and reactionary hemorrhage.
Highlights
- Coblation tonsillectomy was less painful than bipolar diathermy.
- Coblation tonsillectomy was associated with less delayed hemorrhage than bipolar diathermy.
- Tonsillar tissue recovery, thermal damage and return to normal diet were better in the coblation group.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Not applicable
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
