Results
This study included 48
patients who underwent adenotonsillectomy of which 8 patients had adenoidectomy
only. The study sample consisted of n=31 (64.6%) male
and n=17 (35.4%) female patients. The mean age of
patients was
6.125
and the range of age was (2–14) years; the standard deviation of age (SD) was 3.
Further details for each group are described in Table I.
In Group A, patients underwent adenoidectomy with laryngeal mirror
assistant: n=25 (52.1%), while in Group B, patients underwent adenoidectomy
without laryngeal mirror assistant: n=23 (47.9%). Adenoid remnants were found
in 22 patients, who were examined by a fiber optic camera six weeks
postoperatively, and the location was in the pharyngeal roof and near the
choanal opening in 19 (39.6%) patients (grade 1). Adenoid remnants were also found
along and touching the torus tubarius in 3 (6.3%) patients (grade 2). We did
not encounter any patient in the first 6 weeks of follow up with grade 3 or
grade 4. Mouth breathing and snoring were both reported in 6 (12.5%) patients,
one patient had only snoring without mouth breathing, and one patient had mouth
breathing without snoring.
Regarding the association between study group and adenoid remnant
presence, it was found that five patients (20%) in Group A had adenoid remnants
of grade 1, while 20 (80%) patients had grade 0. Group B included 14 (60.9%)
patients who had grade 1, 3 (13%) patients had grade 2, and 6 (26%) patients
had grade 0. Analysis of data by Fisher chi-square test showed a statistically
significant association between Group A and Group B, regarding incidence of
adenoid remnants. Consequently, Group A presented higher percentage of grade
0. X2 (2) =14.82, p≤0.001, in
addition we found that the Cramer’s V for effect size showed a moderate
association between two variables. (Table II).
The analysis of the association between obstructive symptoms
(snoring and mouth breathing) between each group in this study found that Group
A included 3 (12%) patients who complained of snoring after six weeks of
surgery, while in Group B, 4 (17.4%) patients experienced snoring. The results
showed that there were no statistically significant association between study
groups and presence of snoring. (p-value=0.696) (Table III).
On the other hand, Group A
included 2 (8%) patients who had mouth breathing during sleep, whereas Group B
had 5 (21.7%) patients. The results showed that there were no statistically
significant associations between study groups and presence of mouth breathing.
(P-value=0.273) (Table IV).
Table I: Summary table of sociodemographic characteristics of
patients.
|
Group
|
Males
n (%)
|
Females
n (%)
|
Total
n
|
Age
mean (SD)
|
|
A(mirror)
|
17(68)
|
8(32)
|
25
|
5.96(2.94)
|
|
B (no mirror)
|
14(60.8)
|
9(39.2)
|
23
|
6.4(2.9)
|
Table II: Adenoid remnants and its association with each group. Fisher chi
square analysis results, frequency, percentage, and p-value are displayed.
|
Grade
|
Group A
n (%)
|
Group B
n (%)
|
Cramer’s V
|
p-value
|
|
Grade0
|
20(80)
|
6(26)
|
0.554
|
0.000
|
|
Grade 1
|
5(20)
|
14(60.9)
|
|
Grade 2
|
0
|
3(13)
|
Table III: post-operative snoring and its association with each group. Fisher
chi square analysis results frequency, percentage and p-value are displayed.
|
Group
Symptom
|
Group A
n (%)
|
Group B
n (%)
|
p-value
|
|
Snoring
|
3(12)
|
4(17.4)
|
0.696
|
|
No Snoring
|
22(88)
|
19(82.6)
|
Table IV: post-operative mouth breathing and its association with each
group. Fisher chi square analysis results frequency, percentage and p-value are
displayed.
|
Group
Symptom
|
Group A
n (%)
|
Group B
n (%)
|
p-value
|
|
Mouth breathing
|
2(8)
|
5(21.7)
|
0.237
|
|
No mouth breathing
|
23(92)
|
18(78.3)
|
Discussion
Adenoid hypertrophy
is the most common cause of upper airway obstruction in pediatric patients;
therefore, adenoidectomy is the surgical procedure of choice to relieve these
symptoms and improve patients’ quality of life and prevent the medical sequelae
of upper airway obstruction (10). Recurrence or
persistence of obstructive symptoms can happen after surgery. It could occur if
the residual adenoid tissue in choanal opening, pharyngeal roof or torus
tubarius remained after the surgery. In this case, persistent obstructive
symptoms could emerge. In this study, our patients were reviewed after 6 weeks,
to figure out the association between persistence of obstructive symptoms and
existence of adenoid remnants.
Complete resection of adenoid tissue could decrease the risk of
early post-operative complications. Therefore, a good visualization of adenoid
tissues intraoperatively, by using different tools like mirrors or endoscopes,
decrease the frequency of adenoid remnants, which is considered a paramount
factor to decrease the risk of primary adenoids bleeding that occurs within 24
hours of the surgery (16). Moreover,
using assistant tools will make the procedure safer, as under direct vision,
can avoid damaging vital adjacent structures like eustachian tube orifice and
decrease the possibility of eustachian tube dysfunction, which is detected by
early presentation of ear symptoms like otalgia and aural fullness or by
abnormal tympanometry test results (17). Furthermore,
direct visualization can also avoid injury to submucosal plane or deeper muscle
tissue and decrease the risk of intraoperative bleeding (18).
The decision to choose between each visualization tool depends on
the surgeon’s preference; however, each tool has its own advantages. For
instance, the laryngeal mirror is a cheaper tool, readily available, and it
does not require to approach the adenoids through the nose like endoscopes,
which could result in synechia and crusting, especially if powered instruments
are used for adenoidectomy like microdebrider. Additionally, in significant proportion of patients, it is
difficult to get access through the nose if there is deviated nasal septum or
inferior turbinate hypertrophy (19).
Hypertrophied adenoid remnants beside other rhinogenic factors like
allergic rhinitis may cause recurrent symptoms, which need longer time to
occur. Hence, it is recommended to evaluate the association between the risk of
residual adenoid tissue re-growth and the risk of recurrence of obstructive
upper airway symptoms after several months to years of surgery(12). Revision
adenoidectomy incidence and the main underlying factors associated with it have
been studied previously. Grindle et al. studied the incidence of revision
adenoidectomy among 23,612 patients in a 5-year period. The rate was 1.3%, and
the most common indication in revision cases was adenoid hypertrophy. A 2008
study by Joshua et al. on long-term follow-up after adenoidectomy failed to
define a specific rate for revision adenoidectomy but suggested that adenoid
regrowth or persistence is related to the surgical difficulty encountered due
to the indirect access to the adenoid pad (20). In another
study, the incidence of adenoid regrowth was 19.1% within a 12–24-month period.
It was discovered that the incidence was higher in children below 5 years of
age and in those patients who were treated postoperatively with antibiotics on
numerous occasions (12).
In
a study by Emerick et al, the authors concluded that there was a significant
association between tubal tonsillar hypertrophy in previously operated patients
and the recurrent and persistent symptoms;
they identified residual adenoid tissue as a recognized potential
risk (21); However, in
our study, residual adenoid tissue was significantly higher in Group B that
comprised 3 patients with grade 2
(adenoids remnants in torus tubarius), but Group A did not comprise any
patients with grade 2.
Laryngeal mirror is a cheap instrument, and we believe it is ideal
to be used in adenoidectomy to assist in visualizing adenoid tissue in hidden
anatomical areas like nasopharyngeal roof and along torus tubarius. Ark et al.,
in a study, found that only 20% of patients had no residual tissue after blunt
curettage and digital palpation, after which a laryngeal mirror was used to
remove residual adenoid tissue. Then, the median proportion of residual adenoid
tissue volume to total adenoid tissue volume was calculated, which was 19.98% (4); However, we
also have to consider nasal endoscopy for intraoperative evaluation, especially
in patients with a history suggestive of adenoidal hypertrophy where mirror
examination of posterior choana was negative (22).
The limitations of the study were the subjective assessment of
obstructive symptoms postoperatively and the short follow up period. More
patients need to be studied to reach a firm conclusion to abandon the blind
classical curettage approach to removed adenoidal tissue.
Conclusion
This study concluded
that using a laryngeal mirror as an assistant direct visualization tool during
adenoidectomy procedures decreased the rate of residual adenoid tissue
postoperatively in comparison to a blind indirect method. However, we
encountered negative association between obstructive symptoms persistence and
laryngeal mirror approach during 6 weeks of follow-up. Nevertheless, the
laryngeal mirror assistant is efficient, cheap and a valuable instrument to visualize
adenoid tissue precisely; hence, we recommend practicing it routinely.
References
1.Randall
DA. Current Indications for Tonsillectomy and Adenoidectomy. J Am Board Fam
Med. 2020;33(6):1025-30.
2.Paramaesvaran S, Ahmadzada S, Eslick GD.
Incidence and potential risk factors for adenoid regrowth and revision
adenoidectomy: A meta-analysis. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol.
2020;137:110220.
3.Johnston J, Mahadevan M, Douglas RG.
Incidence and factors associated with revision adenoidectomy: A retrospective
study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;103:125-8.
4.Ark N, Kurtaran H, Ugur KS, Yilmaz T, Ozboduroglu AA, Mutlu C.
Comparison of adenoidectomy methods: examining with digital palpation vs.
visualizing the placement of the curette. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol.
2010;74(6):649-51.
5.Zainea V. Conventional curettage
adenoidectomy versus endoscopic assisted adenoidectomy. Maedica (Bucur).
2011;6(4):328-9.
6.Ferreira MS, Mangussi-Gomes J, Ximendes R, Evangelista AR,
Miranda EL, Garcia LB, et al. Comparison of
three different adenoidectomy techniques in children - has the conventional
technique been surpassed? Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;104:145-9.
7.Sethi N, Egan P, Ward VM. Suction
diathermy adenoidectomy performed in the district general hospital. J Laryngol
Otol. 2014;128(1):78-81.
8.Sharifkashani S, Dabirmoghaddam P, Kheirkhah M, Hosseinzadehnik
R. A new clinical scoring system for adenoid hypertrophy in children.
Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;27(78):55-61.
9.Baldassari CM, Choi S. Assessing
adenoid hypertrophy in children: X-ray or nasal endoscopy? Laryngoscope.
2014;124(7):1509-10.
10.Pagella F, Pusateri A, Chu F, Cairello F, Benazzo M, Matti E, et
al. Adenoid assessment in paediatric patients: the role of flexible
nasal endoscopy. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2011;24(4 Suppl):49-54.
11.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.
12.Lesinskas E, Drigotas M. The incidence
of adenoidal regrowth after adenoidectomy and its effect on persistent nasal
symptoms. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;266(4):469-73.
13.Phillips DE, Bates GJ, Parker AJ, Griffiths MV, Green J. Digital
and mirror assessment of the adenoids at operation. Clin Otolaryngol Allied
Sci. 1989;14(2):131-3.
14.Yildirim YS, Apuhan T, Aksoy F, Veyseller B, Ozturan O. Is
transnasal endoscopic examination necessary before and after adenoidectomy?
Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;66(Suppl 1):257-60.
15.Grindle CR, Murray RC, Chennupati SK, Barth PC, Reilly JS.
Incidence of revision adenoidectomy in children. Laryngoscope.
2011;121(10):2128-30.
16.Milosevic DN. Postadenoidectomy
hemorrhage: a two-year prospective study. Vojnosanit Pregl. 2012;69(12):1052-4.
17. Atilla MH, Kaytez SK, Kesici GG, Bastimur S, Tuncer S. Comparison
between curettage adenoidectomy and endoscopic-assisted microdebrider
adenoidectomy in terms of Eustachian tube dysfunction. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol.
2020;86(1):38-43.
18.Demirbilek N, Evren C, Altun U. Postadenoidectomy
hemorrhage: how we do it? Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(2):2799-803.
19.Bross-Soriano D, Schimelmitz-Idi J, Arrieta-Gomez JR. [Endoscopic
adenoidectomy; use or abuse of the technology?]. Cir Cir. 2004;72(1):15-9;
discussion 21-2.
20.Joshua B, Bahar G, Sulkes J, Shpitzer T, Raveh E. Adenoidectomy:
long-term follow-up. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006;135(4):576-80.
21.Emerick KS, Cunningham MJ. Tubal tonsil
hypertrophy: a cause of recurrent symptoms after adenoidectomy. Arch
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006;132(2):153-6.
22.Eweiss A, Al Yaghchi C, Sharma S, Wong PY.
Assessment of posterior choanal obstruction caused by adenoidal hypertrophy:
Intra-operative mirror versus rigid nasendoscopic examination. Int J Pediatr
Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;110:144-6.