Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 2297411

Electrodissection tonsillectomy.

T A Weimert·J W Babyak·H J Richter
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A prospective, double-blind study was undertaken to compare the technique of removing tonsils using cold dissection with selective cauterization vs electrocautery dissection. The length of the procedure, blood loss, degree of pharyngeal pain, otalgia, and incidence of postoperative hemorrhage was recorded for 106 consecutive patients. In addition, our experience in performing the electrodissection tonsillectomy in 2431 patients is reviewed. Electrodissection tonsillectomy is a safe and effective procedure that offers several advantages over that of cold dissection using selective cautery.

Explore related subjects

Double-Blind MethodElectrocoagulationHemorrhageHumansIncidencePostoperative PainProspective StudiesReoperationTonsillectomyClinical TrialControlled Clinical TrialJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

T A Weimert, J W Babyak, H J Richter. 1990. Electrodissection tonsillectomy.. https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.1990.01870020062016

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1992

[Clinical experience with long-term administration of "essential" phospholipids in chronic active hepatitis. Review of 3 double-blind studies].

The results from three double-blind studies, obtained after a 12-month treatment with Essentiale or placebo in patients (n = 85) with HBsAg positive or HBsAg negative chronic active hepatitis provide evidence of the clear improvement of the clinical and histological picture in the majority of the patients treated with Essentiale forte.

Double-Blind Method↗
PubMed1992

Controversies in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in American men today. Unfortunately, at the time of diagnosis, most men will have either regional or distant metastatic disease. METHODS: Six hundred three patients with advanced prostate cancer who could be examined were randomized in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to receive the luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist leuprolide with either flutamide or placebo. RESULTS: Patients receiving the combined therapy arm of leuprolide and flutamide had an increased progression-free survival time of 16.9 versus 13.8 months and a survival advantage of 35.1 versus 20.3 months. A more striking difference was found in the subset of patients receiving combination therapy who had good performance and minimal disease. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be a definite advantage of combination therapy over leuprolide alone, especially in patients with minimal disease and good performance. Another larger intergroup study using orchiectomy and flutamide versus orchiectomy and placebo is currently underway.

Double-Blind Method↗