Endoscopic assisted adenoidectomy versus conventional curettage adenoidectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

24Citations
Citations of this article
27Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Adenoidectomy, surgical removal of hypertrophic adenoids, is a common operation in children worldwide. The purpose of this study was to compare the operative effectiveness, and included total operative time, blood loss and complications, between endoscopic assisted adenoidectomy and conventional curettage adenoidectomy. EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure and symposiums and review articles were used to choose relevant randomized controlled trials. A meta-analysis was performed to analyze the data for total operative time, blood loss and complications. Seven studies fit the inclusion criteria, and included 331 patients treated with endoscopic assisted adenoidectomy, and 251 patients treated with conventional curettage adenoidectomy. The meta-analysis demonstrated that compared with conventional curettage adenoidectomy, endoscopic assisted adenoidectomy had a shorter operative time (SMD −1.09; 95 % CI −1.29 to −0.90; p < 0.00001), less blood loss (MD −19.74; 95 % CI −22.75 to −16.73; p < 0.00001), and fewer complications (OR 0.15; 95 % CI 0.07–0.35; p < 0.0001). Endoscopic assisted adenoidectomy has advantages over conventional curettage adenoidectomy with regard to total operative time, blood loss and complications.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Yang, L., Shan, Y., Wang, S., Cai, C., & Zhang, H. (2016). Endoscopic assisted adenoidectomy versus conventional curettage adenoidectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. SpringerPlus, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2072-1

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free