Evidence Hub

Cold versus hot haemostasis in tonsillectomy: impact on post-tonsillectomy haemorrhage and pain perception - results from a randomized clinical trial

Howitz MF, Barfred M, Vilhelmsen FJ, Trolle W, Kirchmann M

European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2026

381 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare cold and hot haemostasis techniques during tonsillectomy in terms of the posttonsillectomy haemorrhage (PTH) risk and patient-reported postoperative pain. The primary objective was to compare the incidence of PTH from the cold- versus hot-haemostasis-treated tonsillar bed within 30 days. The secondary objective was to compare pain perception between the two sides. METHODS: This was a randomized, interventional, single-centre, self-controlled clinical trial that included adolescents (aged ≥ 12 years) who underwent tonsillectomy at Nordsjællands Hospital, Denmark. Patients with malignancies, peritonsillar abscess, or coagulopathies as well as those treated with anticoagulants were excluded. Each patient received cold haemostasis (cold steel dissection and knot ligation with compression) on one tonsillar bed and hot haemostasis (cold steel dissection and bipolar diathermy, 15 W) on the contralateral side; with this method, patients served as their own controls. RESULTS: Among the 381 included patients, 188 (49%) completed each protocol (cold/hot). Primary PTH (≤ 24 h after surgery) occurred in 12 patients (6.4%), with 6 cases of bleeding only from the cold-treated side, 3 from both sides and in 3 cases laterality was unknown (p ≤ 0.0014; OR 13.0; 95% CI 1.5–113). Secondary PTH occurred in 54 patients (29%), and of these, 33 were managed at home and 21 were admitted. Among the admitted patients, 12 bled only from the hot-treated…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 381 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