C-H Lee1, W-C Hsu2, J-Y Ko3, T-H Yeh3, M-T Lin4, K-T Kang5. 1. Department of Otolaryngology, Taipei Hospital, Ministry of Health and Welfare, New Taipei City, Taiwan; Department of Otolaryngology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; Department of Nursing, Hsin Sheng Junior College of Medical Care and Management, Taoyuan, Taiwan. 2. Department of Otolaryngology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; Department of Otolaryngology, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University; Sleep Center, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. 3. Department of Otolaryngology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; Department of Otolaryngology, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University. 4. Sleep Center, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; Department of Internal Medicine, Hsiao Chung-Cheng Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan. 5. Department of Otolaryngology, Taipei Hospital, Ministry of Health and Welfare, New Taipei City, Taiwan; Department of Otolaryngology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To estimate the rate of revision surgery after previous adenoidectomy in children and to compare the rate of revision adenoidectomy in children with different conditions and by using different surgical techniques. METHODOLOGY: The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018107877). Two authors independently searched databases, specifically PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Review database. The keywords used were "adenoids","adenoidectomy","reoperation","revision"and "regrowth". The revision rate was pooled using a random-effect model. Subgroup analyses were conducted for children based on different settings, countries, risks of bias, and surgical techniques. RESULTS: A total 16 studies with 95 727 children were analyzed (mean age: 4.69 (1.62) years; 60% boys; sample size: 5983 patients). Five studies had a low risk of bias, 10 studies had a moderate risk of bias, and one study had a high risk of bias. The rate of revision adenoidectomy was 1.9%. Ages at initial surgery and follow-up were not significantly associated with revision surgeries. The revision rate was not significantly different in children receiving surgeries in different settings (single center vs multicenter vs population-based, country (non-United States vs United States, and risk of bias. Moreover, surgical techniques, such as curettage, suction cautery, microdebridement, and coblation did not significantly affect revision rates in children who received adenoidectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Revision surgery was undertaken with a frequency of 1.9% in children who underwent adenoidectomy. A lack of strong evidence exists to correlate surgical techniques with revision rate in pediatric adenoidectomy.
BACKGROUND: To estimate the rate of revision surgery after previous adenoidectomy in children and to compare the rate of revision adenoidectomy in children with different conditions and by using different surgical techniques. METHODOLOGY: The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018107877). Two authors independently searched databases, specifically PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Review database. The keywords used were "adenoids","adenoidectomy","reoperation","revision"and "regrowth". The revision rate was pooled using a random-effect model. Subgroup analyses were conducted for children based on different settings, countries, risks of bias, and surgical techniques. RESULTS: A total 16 studies with 95 727 children were analyzed (mean age: 4.69 (1.62) years; 60% boys; sample size: 5983 patients). Five studies had a low risk of bias, 10 studies had a moderate risk of bias, and one study had a high risk of bias. The rate of revision adenoidectomy was 1.9%. Ages at initial surgery and follow-up were not significantly associated with revision surgeries. The revision rate was not significantly different in children receiving surgeries in different settings (single center vs multicenter vs population-based, country (non-United States vs United States, and risk of bias. Moreover, surgical techniques, such as curettage, suction cautery, microdebridement, and coblation did not significantly affect revision rates in children who received adenoidectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Revision surgery was undertaken with a frequency of 1.9% in children who underwent adenoidectomy. A lack of strong evidence exists to correlate surgical techniques with revision rate in pediatric adenoidectomy.