Radiofrequency Ablation vs Electrocautery Blinded Randomized Trial: Impact on Clinically Meaningful Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze patients' return to normal activity, pain scores, narcotic use, and adverse events after undergoing tonsillectomy or adenotonsillectomy with monopolar electrocautery or radiofrequency ablation. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized double-blinded clinical trial based on prospective parallel design. SETTING: Academic medical center and tertiary children's hospital between March 2018 and July 2019. METHODS: Inclusion criteria included patients aged ≥3 years with surgical indication of recurrent tonsillitis or airway obstruction/sleep-disordered breathing. Patients were randomly assigned to monopolar electrocautery or radiofrequency ablation. Patients were blinded to treatment assignment. Survey questions answered via text or email were collected daily until postoperative day 15. The primary outcome was the patient's return to normal activity. Secondary outcomes included daily pain score, total amount of postoperative narcotic use, and adverse events. RESULTS: Of the 236 patients who met inclusion criteria and were randomly assigned to radiofrequency ablation or monopolar electrocautery, 230 completed the study (radiofrequency ablation, n = 112; monopolar electrocautery, n = 118). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the number of days for return to normal activity (P = .89), daily pain scores over 15 postoperative days (P = .46), postoperative narcotic use (P = .61), or return to hospital for any reason (P = .60), including bleeding as an adverse event (P = .13). CONCLUSIONS: As one of the largest randomized controlled trials examining instrumentation in tonsillectomy, our data do not show a difference between monopolar electrocautery and radiofrequency ablation with regard to return to normal activity, daily pain scores, total postoperative narcotic use, or adverse events.

An Aerosol Containment and Filtration Tent for Intubation During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background. Exposure to infectious droplets confers a high risk for infection transmission by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. Aerosolizing procedures pose particular concern for increasing healthcare workers' (HCWs) risks of infection. Multiple creative personal protective equipment solutions have been utilized to minimize exposure to infectious particles; however, the overall benefit of many of these devices is limited by a number of factors. Methods. We designed an intubation tent consisting of a metal frame and a clear plastic sheet. The flexible walls of our tent offer increased maneuverability & access, although the efficacy in reducing risk of transmission to HCWs remained unclear. Using an atomizer, particle generator, and matchstick smoke, we simulated the generation of infectious respiratory droplets and aerosols and tested whether our device effectively decreased the concentration of these particles to which a provider might be exposed. Finally, we tested whether the addition of a vacuum fan fit with a high efficiency particulate air filter designed to evacuate contaminated air would influence particle concentrations inside and outside the tent. Results. Droplet dispersion tests with the tent in place showed that the simulated droplet distribution was limited to surfaces within the tent. Aerosol testing under a variety of circumstances consistently showed only a minor rise in particle concentration in the air outside the tent despite an initial peak of particle concentration during generation within. All testing demonstrated declining inside concentrations over time. Conclusions. Our simulations suggest our device has the potential to effectively decrease HCWs' exposure to infectious droplets and aerosolized viral particles.