4.5 Review

Updated systematic review of tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy for treatment of pediatric obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome

期刊

OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY
卷 140, 期 6, 页码 800-808

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.otohns.2009.01.043

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: Perform an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the cure rate of tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy (T&A) for pediatric obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS). METHODS: A systematic review was performed to identify English-language studies that evaluate the treatment of pediatric (age < 20 years) OSAHS patients with T&A using polysomnography as a metric of cure. Twenty-three studies fit the inclusion criteria and a meta-analysis was performed to determine the overall success. Meta-analysis was also performed to determine the success in obese and comorbid populations vs cohorts of healthy children. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 1079 subjects (mean sample size of 42 patients) with a mean ace of 6.5 years. The effect measure was the percentage of pediatric patients with OSAHS who were successfully treated (k = 22 studies) with T&A based on preoperative and postoperative PSG data. Random-effects model estimated the treatment success of T&A was 66.3 percent, when cure was defined per each individual study. When cure was defined as an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) of < 1 (k = 9 studies), random-effects model estimate for OSAHS treatment success with T&A was 59.8 percent. Postoperative mean AHI was significantly decreased from preoperative levels. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to popular belief, meta-analysis of current literature demonstrates that pediatric sleep apnea is often not cured by T&A. Although complete resolution is not achieved in most cases, T&A still offers significant improvements in AHI, making it a valuable first-line treatment for pediatric OSAHS. (C) 2009 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据