Isolated Adenoidectomy for Pediatric Sleep‐Disordered Breathing: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
Résumé fourni par la source
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of isolated adenoidectomy in managing pediatric sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) and upper airway obstruction (UAO). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were systematically searched from inception through March 2025. REVIEW METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we included studies reporting outcomes of isolated adenoidectomy in children with SDB and UAO. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A meta-proportion analysis was conducted to evaluate symptomatic improvement and the need for further surgical intervention. RESULTS: Twenty-two observational studies including 4460 children were analyzed. The weighted mean age was 5.2 years. Isolated adenoidectomy led to a mean apnea-hypopnea index reduction of 11.3 events/h across four studies. The pooled proportion of symptomatic improvement was 75% (95% CI 60-88), while the pooled rate of further surgical intervention was 17% (95% CI 11-24). Subgroup analyses suggested greater symptomatic improvement and lower reoperation rates in children older than 3 years. CONCLUSION: Isolated adenoidectomy improves both objective sleep parameters and subjective outcomes. In appropriately selected children, it may represent a conservative alternative to adenotonsillectomy. These findings, however, require confirmation through well-designed randomized controlled trials.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Isolated Adenoidectomy for Pediatric Sleep‐Disordered Breathing: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
- Date Crossref
- 17/08/2026
- Éditeur
- Wiley
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.