Reusable versus disposable instruments in tonsillectomy: A comparative study of outcomes

被引:0
|
作者
Maheshwar, A [1 ]
De, M [1 ]
Browning, ST [1 ]
机构
[1] Singleton Hosp, Dept Otolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, Swansea SA2 8QA, W Glam, Wales
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Tonsillectomy, traditionally performed using reusable instruments (Rls), has recently been performed using disposable instruments (Dls), to prevent the theoretical risk of spreading new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Following this, there have been concerns of increased risk of complications, especially haemorrhage. We audited our hospital's complication rates of 100 tonsillectomies performed using Rl and 100 using Dls. We analysed the overall complication rates and the postoperative haemorrhage rates. and compared them with the broader groups of Rls versus Dls. We also compared patients who did not have diathermy with those who did have diathermy. The overall complication rate was 6% with Rls and 33% with Dls and the haemorrhage rate was 1% and 12%, respectively With Dls, these rates were significantly higher in the diathermy subgroup. We believe this is the first study to look at the complications due to Dls.
引用
收藏
页码:579 / 583
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Coblation Versus Cold Dissection Tonsillectomy: A Comparative Study
    Sheet, Mohammed Saeed
    Al-Banna, Ausama Fahmy
    Emanuel, Emanuel Sargon
    Mohammed, Ali Abdulmuttalib
    Alnori, Haitham
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF OTOLARYNGOLOGY AND HEAD & NECK SURGERY, 2022, 74 (SUPPL 3) : 5706 - 5711
  • [32] Coblation Versus Cold Dissection Tonsillectomy: A Comparative Study
    Mohammed Saeed Sheet
    Ausama Fahmy Al-Banna
    Emanuel Sargon Emanuel
    Ali Abdulmuttalib Mohammed
    Haitham Alnori
    Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, 2022, 74 : 5706 - 5711
  • [33] Eco-efficiency of disposable and reusable surgical instruments—a scissors case
    Suphunnika Ibbotson
    Tina Dettmer
    Sami Kara
    Christoph Herrmann
    The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2013, 18 : 1137 - 1148
  • [34] Disposable versus reusable medical gowns: A performance comparison
    McQuerry, Meredith
    Easter, Elizabeth
    Cao, Alex
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL, 2021, 49 (05) : 563 - 570
  • [35] Increased post-tonsillectomy secondary haemorrhage with disposable instruments: an audit cycle
    Maini, S
    Waine, E
    Evans, K
    CLINICAL OTOLARYNGOLOGY, 2002, 27 (03): : 175 - 178
  • [36] Reusable versus disposable forceps: the dilemma of cost and safety
    Gordon, SJ
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2000, 51 (03) : 363 - 365
  • [37] A comparison of reusable versus disposable laparoscopic instrument costs
    Eddie, G
    White, S
    AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 1996, 66 (10): : 671 - 675
  • [38] Reusable versus Disposable Biopsy Forceps: an Economic Comparison
    Joergensen, E.
    Busch, C.
    Ujlaky, R.
    ZEITSCHRIFT FUR GASTROENTEROLOGIE, 2008, 46 (10): : 1185 - 1187
  • [39] Single-use versus reusable laparoscopic surgical instruments: A comparative cost analysis
    Schaer, GN
    Koechli, OR
    Haller, U
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1995, 173 (06) : 1812 - 1815
  • [40] Ultracision-scissors:: Disposable instruments versus resterilized instruments in bariatric surgery:: A prospective randomized study
    Gärtner, D
    Münz, K
    Hesse, U
    OBESITY SURGERY, 2006, 16 (04) : 433 - 433