Coblator Wand Comparative Analysis
For patients and families
In plain language
An automatic summary of structured registry data. It is an orientation aid, not a substitute for the official protocol or a physician assessment.
- What is being studied
- The protocol lists: New Coblator Ablation Wands, Reprocessed Medline Coblator Ablation Wands.
- Who it may be relevant to
- Registry conditions: Tonsillectomy, Adenoidectomy. Basic parameters: 1 year — 18 years · All.
- What needs checking
- Age, condition and sex are only basic indicators. Prior treatment, laboratory values and other mandatory requirements appear in the eligibility criteria below.
- Where it takes place
- United States
- Next step
- Save the trial, show it to the treating physician, and confirm current recruitment with the study center. Costs, documents and travel →
Unsure about the terms? Read our patient guide →
Official title
Comparative Analysis of Efficiency, Technical Performance, and Environmental Cost Between Reprocessed and New Coblator Wands in Intracapsular Tonsillectomies and Adenoidectomies
Overview
This study will address the gap in coblator wands by comparing the performance of reprocessed coblator wands with new wands in terms of efficiency and technical issues. As part of the evaluation, the investigator team will conduct the technical performance of the life cycle assessment of reprocessed versus new coblation wands based on the methodology described in the literature (see References) in studies of laryngoscopes.
Detailed description
Reprocessed operating room tools offer surgeons an opportunity to use equipment that have been inferenced to incur lower hospital and environmental costs. Tools that are "disposable" are collected by reprocessing companies that then refurbish and sterilize the instrument and sell it back to the hospital at a reduced cost. Advocates argue that they may serve as a means of controlling increasing healthcare costs and further, because few if any new raw materials are needed for the reprocessing, environmental costs are also hypothesized to be reduced. However, the use of reprocessed tools has demonstrated variable results in clinical performance across different surgical domains. Comparable performance of reprocessed orthopedic drill bits to new ones in terms of force, heat, and usability has been demonstrated (see References). It has been shown that blinded surgeons could not distinguish between new and reprocessed arthroscopic shavers and found equivalent sharpness on engineering tests. In contrast, it has been found that reprocessed laparoscopic trocars had more imperfections and higher leak rates (see References) reported more abnormalities in reprocessed harmonic scalpels with poorer tissue handling outcomes. There remains a lack of consensus about the reliability of reprocessed surgical tools, including coblator wands.
Interventions
- Device New Coblator Ablation Wands
New, unused coblator ablation wands from Arthrocare - Device Reprocessed Medline Coblator Ablation Wands
Reprocessed coblator ablation wands from Medline
Primary outcome measures
- Surgeon Comfort [Time frame: Following the procedure, up to 4 hours]
Eligibility criteria
Inclusion criteria
- Pediatric patients scheduled for tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy
- Parental consent and child assent (when applicable)
Exclusion criteria
- Pregnancy
Criteria are shown verbatim from the registry (in English). Final eligibility is always assessed by the study center.
Healthy volunteers: No
Study design
- Allocation
- Randomized
- Model
- Parallel assignment
- Masking
- Double blind
- Primary purpose
- Other
Study locations
United States · 1 center
- Children's Hosptial at Montefiore — The Bronx
Publications
- Myers R, Kim H, Hsieh AH, O'Toole RV, Sciadini MF. When Should We Change Drill Bits? A Mechanical Comparison of New, Reprocessed, and Damaged Bits. J Orthop Trauma. 2017 May;31(5):281-286. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000812. PMID 28166171
- Ledonio CG, Arendt EA, Adams JE, Matz J, Boers A, Miller K, Lester BR. Reprocessed arthroscopic shavers: evaluation of sharpness and function in a cadaver model. Orthopedics. 2014 Jan;37(1):e1-9. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20131219-09. PMID 24683649
- Mues AC, Haramis G, Casazza C, Okhunov Z, Badani KK, Landman J. Prospective randomized single-blinded in vitro and ex vivo evaluation of new and reprocessed laparoscopic trocars. J Am Coll Surg. 2010 Dec;211(6):738-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.08.003. Epub 2010 Oct 30. PMID 21036630
- Weld KJ, Dryer S, Hruby G, Ames CD, Venkatesh R, Matthews BD, Landman J. Comparison of mechanical and in vivo performance of new and reprocessed harmonic scalpels. Urology. 2006 May;67(5):898-903. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.11.027. PMID 16698349
- Jin T, Huang W, Jiang K, Xiong JJ, Xue P, Javed MA, Yang XN, Xia Q. Urinary trypsinogen-2 for diagnosing acute pancreatitis: a meta-analysis. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2013 Aug;12(4):355-62. doi: 10.1016/s1499-3872(13)60056-9. PMID 23924492
Identifiers
NCT: NCT07635719 · 2025-16898