Evidence Hub

Laser Versus Cold Steel Dissection Tonsillectomy in Recurrent Acute Tonsillitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Mafra M, Cabral TDD, Roca Mora MM, de Mesquita CF, Pertzborn D, Mühlig A, von Eggeling F, Guntinas-Lichius O

Lasers in surgery and medicine, 2025

612 participants

Abstract

Objectives: Severe recurrent acute tonsillitis (RAT) is commonly treated by removing the palatine tonsils, namely tonsillectomy (TE). Laser TE has been suggested as an alternative to cold steel dissection, although its efficacy and safety for the surgical treatment of RAT remain unclear. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing laser TE to cold steel dissection TE in patients with RAT.

Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central for eligible studies. Outcomes of interest were intraoperative blood loss, operation time, quality of life, postoperative pain, and postoperative hemorrhage. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed. RStudio v4.1.0 and Review Manager v5.4 were used for statistical analysis. A prospective protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024533742).

Results: Nine studies, including six randomized trials, met eligibility criteria, comprising 612 patients with RAT. In total, 1224 tonsils were excised; 612 (50%) were submitted to laser TE, and the remaining to cold steel dissection. Laser was associated with lower intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD] -35.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] [-53.08, -18.71]; p < 0.01; I² = 100%) and operation time (MD -10.46; 95% CI [-16.63, -4.29]; p < 0.01; I² = 99%). No significant differences between interventions were found in postoperative pain, quality of life, or postoperative hemorrhage.

Conclusions: In patients with RAT, laser TE yielded reduced…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 612 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free