Abstract
OBJECTIVES
To compare the digital, mirror and nasendoscopic assessment of adenoid size and posterior choanal obstruction in patients undergoing adenoidectomy.
DESIGN
Prospective, blinded study.
SETTING
Otorhinolaryngology department at a London teaching hospital.
PARTICIPANTS
Twenty-eight consecutive patients undergoing adenoidectomy in conjunction with tonsillectomy or myringotomy under general anaesthesia, aged 17 months to 16 years.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Adenoid size and postnasal space obstruction as assessed by digital examination, nasendoscopy and trans-oral mirror visualization. These examination methods were each compared with each other.
RESULTS
Nasendoscopy and mirror examination correlated well (Spearman's R(S) = 0.71, P < 0.0001) but Passing and Bablock regression analysis demonstrated that mirror examination consistently underestimated the degree of choanal obstruction in comparison with nasendoscopy. There was no significant correlation between nasendoscopy and palpation (R(S) = 0.26, P = 0.17) and only a moderate correlation between mirror examination and palpation (R(S) = 0.46, P = 0.014).
CONCLUSION
If nasendoscopy is considered the gold standard, then palpation is a poor measure of adenoid hypertrophy and mirror examination consistently underestimates choanal occlusion.
Collapse