• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

常规刮除腺样体切除术与其他腺样体切除术手术技术的疗效和安全性比较:系统评价和网络荟萃分析。

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of conventional curettage adenoidectomy with those of other adenoidectomy surgical techniques: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, 21589, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Department of Surgery - Section of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

出版信息

J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2023 Mar 4;52(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s40463-023-00634-9.

DOI:10.1186/s40463-023-00634-9
PMID:36870974
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9985239/
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

There is a lack of robust evidence in regards to whether the intra and post-operative safety and efficacy of conventional curettage adenoidectomy is better than those of other available surgical techniques. Therefore, this study was conducted as a systematic review and network meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with the aim of comparing the safety and efficacy of conventional curettage adenoidectomy with all other available adenoidectomy techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of published articles was performed in 2021 using databases such as PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, EBSCO, and the Cochrane Library. All RCTs that compared conventional curettage adenoidectomy with other surgical techniques and were published in English between 1965 and 2021 were included. The quality of the included RCTs have been assessed using Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool.

RESULTS

After screening 1494 articles, 17 were identified for comparing several adenoidectomy techniques and were eligible for quantitative analysis. Of those, 9 RCTs were analyzed for intraoperative blood loss, and 6 articles were included for post-operative bleeding. Furthermore; 14, 10, and 7 studies were included for surgical time, residual adenoid tissue, and postoperative complications respectively. Endoscopic-assisted microdebrider adenoidectomy yielded a statistically significantly greater estimate of intraoperative blood loss compared with conventional curettage adenoidectomy (mean difference [MD], 92.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] 28.3-157.1), suction diathermy (MD, 117.1; 95% CI 37.2-197.1). Suction diathermy had the highest cumulative probability of being the preferred technique because it was estimated to result in the least intraoperative blood loss. Electronic molecular resonance adenoidectomy was estimated to be more likely to result in the shortest surgical time (mean rank, 2.2). Participants in the intervention group were 97% less likely to have residual adenoid tissue than children in the conventional curettage group (odds ratio 0.03; 95% CI 0.01-0.15); therefore, conventional curettage was not considered an appropriate technique for complete removal of adenoid tissue.

CONCLUSION

There is no single technique that can be considered best for all possible outcomes. Therefore, otolaryngologists should make an appropriate choice after critically reviewing the clinical characteristics of children requiring adenoidectomy. Findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis may guide otolaryngologists when making evidence-based decisions regarding the treatment of enlarged and symptomatic adenoids in children.

摘要

目的

关于传统刮除腺样体切除术的术中及术后安全性和疗效是否优于其他可用手术技术,目前尚无确凿证据。因此,本研究进行了一项系统评价和网络荟萃分析,对已发表的随机对照试验(RCT)进行了评估,旨在比较传统刮除腺样体切除术与所有其他可用腺样体切除术技术的安全性和疗效。

材料与方法

2021 年,我们通过 PubMed/Medline、EMBASE、EBSCO 和 Cochrane 图书馆等数据库进行了已发表文章的系统检索。纳入了 1965 年至 2021 年间发表的所有比较传统刮除腺样体切除术与其他手术技术的 RCT,并使用 Cochrane 协作风险偏倚工具评估了纳入 RCT 的质量。

结果

经过筛选,共 1494 篇文章,其中 17 篇文章比较了几种腺样体切除术技术,符合定量分析的标准。其中,9 项 RCT 分析了术中出血量,6 项文章分析了术后出血。此外,分别有 14、10 和 7 项研究纳入了手术时间、残留腺样体组织和术后并发症。与传统刮除腺样体切除术相比,内镜辅助微动力切除腺样体术中出血量明显更大(平均差值[MD],92.7;95%置信区间[CI] 28.3-157.1),电凝吸引术(MD,117.1;95% CI 37.2-197.1)。电凝吸引术的累积概率最高,被认为是首选技术,因为它估计会导致术中出血量最少。电子分子共振腺样体切除术估计手术时间最短(平均秩,2.2)。与传统刮除组相比,接受干预组的患儿残留腺样体组织的可能性低 97%(比值比 0.03;95% CI 0.01-0.15);因此,传统刮除术不被认为是一种完全切除腺样体组织的合适技术。

结论

没有一种技术可以被认为对所有可能的结果都是最佳的。因此,耳鼻喉科医生应在仔细审查需要行腺样体切除术的患儿的临床特征后做出适当选择。本系统评价和荟萃分析的结果可能会在耳鼻喉科医生根据儿童腺样体肥大和症状做出基于证据的决策时提供指导。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e1d8/9985239/4dc2581e15d0/40463_2023_634_Fig12_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e1d8/9985239/f5d6e22bfbb1/40463_2023_634_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e1d8/9985239/b322d469a716/40463_2023_634_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e1d8/9985239/d9519d3f38ee/40463_2023_634_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e1d8/9985239/6f796bbd2bee/40463_2023_634_Fig4_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e1d8/9985239/50b0df7b4b30/40463_2023_634_Fig5_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e1d8/9985239/ba69a49e0647/40463_2023_634_Fig6_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e1d8/9985239/a60324d35406/40463_2023_634_Fig7_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e1d8/9985239/c1aa473bddbf/40463_2023_634_Fig8_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e1d8/9985239/9fbe179452de/40463_2023_634_Fig9_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e1d8/9985239/5f0eae93f61b/40463_2023_634_Fig10_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e1d8/9985239/4509b9f29524/40463_2023_634_Fig11_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e1d8/9985239/4dc2581e15d0/40463_2023_634_Fig12_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e1d8/9985239/f5d6e22bfbb1/40463_2023_634_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e1d8/9985239/b322d469a716/40463_2023_634_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e1d8/9985239/d9519d3f38ee/40463_2023_634_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e1d8/9985239/6f796bbd2bee/40463_2023_634_Fig4_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e1d8/9985239/50b0df7b4b30/40463_2023_634_Fig5_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e1d8/9985239/ba69a49e0647/40463_2023_634_Fig6_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e1d8/9985239/a60324d35406/40463_2023_634_Fig7_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e1d8/9985239/c1aa473bddbf/40463_2023_634_Fig8_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e1d8/9985239/9fbe179452de/40463_2023_634_Fig9_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e1d8/9985239/5f0eae93f61b/40463_2023_634_Fig10_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e1d8/9985239/4509b9f29524/40463_2023_634_Fig11_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e1d8/9985239/4dc2581e15d0/40463_2023_634_Fig12_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Comparison of the efficacy and safety of conventional curettage adenoidectomy with those of other adenoidectomy surgical techniques: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.常规刮除腺样体切除术与其他腺样体切除术手术技术的疗效和安全性比较:系统评价和网络荟萃分析。
J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2023 Mar 4;52(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s40463-023-00634-9.
2
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.慢性斑块状银屑病的全身药理学治疗:一项网状荟萃分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 22;12(12):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub2.
3
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.系统性药理学治疗慢性斑块状银屑病:网络荟萃分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Apr 19;4(4):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub4.
4
Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma.转移性皮肤黑色素瘤的全身治疗
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 6;2(2):CD011123. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011123.pub2.
5
Coblation versus other surgical techniques for tonsillectomy.用于扁桃体切除术的低温等离子消融术与其他手术技术的比较
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Aug 22;8(8):CD004619. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004619.pub3.
6
Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis.成人全身麻醉后预防术后恶心呕吐的药物:网状Meta分析
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 19;10(10):CD012859. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012859.pub2.
7
Intracavity lavage and wound irrigation for prevention of surgical site infection.腔内灌洗和伤口冲洗预防手术部位感染
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Oct 30;10(10):CD012234. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012234.pub2.
8
Intravenous magnesium sulphate and sotalol for prevention of atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass surgery: a systematic review and economic evaluation.静脉注射硫酸镁和索他洛尔预防冠状动脉搭桥术后房颤:系统评价与经济学评估
Health Technol Assess. 2008 Jun;12(28):iii-iv, ix-95. doi: 10.3310/hta12280.
9
Sertindole for schizophrenia.用于治疗精神分裂症的舍吲哚。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Jul 20;2005(3):CD001715. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001715.pub2.
10
Dental fillings for the treatment of caries in the primary dentition.用于治疗乳牙龋齿的补牙材料。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Apr 15(2):CD004483. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004483.pub2.

引用本文的文献

1
Effects of visual guidance and instrument choice on symptom recurrence following adenoidectomy: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.腺样体切除术后视觉引导和器械选择对症状复发的影响:随机对照试验的系统评价
BMJ Surg Interv Health Technol. 2025 Mar 27;7(1):e000370. doi: 10.1136/bmjsit-2024-000370. eCollection 2025.
2
Unveiling the Enigmatic Adenoids and Tonsils: Exploring Immunology, Physiology, Microbiome Dynamics, and the Transformative Power of Surgery.揭开腺样体和扁桃体的神秘面纱:探索免疫学、生理学、微生物组动态以及手术的变革力量。
Microorganisms. 2023 Jun 21;11(7):1624. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms11071624.

本文引用的文献

1
Comparison of Conventional Curettage Adenoidectomy Versus Endoscopic Powered Adenoidectomy: A Randomised Single-Blind Study.传统刮除腺样体切除术与内镜动力腺样体切除术的比较:一项随机单盲研究。
Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2022 Oct;74(Suppl 2):1044-1049. doi: 10.1007/s12070-020-02122-2. Epub 2020 Sep 2.
2
Eustachian Tube Dysfunction in Children With Adenoid Hypertrophy: The Role of Adenoidectomy for Improving Ear Ventilation.腺样体肥大患儿的咽鼓管功能障碍:腺样体切除术对改善耳部通气的作用
Ear Nose Throat J. 2021 Jan 20:145561321989455. doi: 10.1177/0145561321989455.
3
Cold versus hot adenoidectomy: A prospective, randomized controlled trial.
冷刀与热刀腺样体切除术:一项前瞻性随机对照试验。
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2020 Aug;135:110087. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2020.110087. Epub 2020 May 5.
4
Endoscopic adenoidectomy: a systematic analysis of outcomes and complications in 1006 patients.内镜下腺样体切除术:1006例患者的结局与并发症的系统分析
Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2020 Feb;40(1):79-86. doi: 10.14639/0392-100X-N0150.
5
Adenoidectomy in Children: What Is the Evidence and What Is its Role?儿童腺样体切除术:证据是什么,其作用又是什么?
Curr Otorhinolaryngol Rep. 2018;6(1):64-73. doi: 10.1007/s40136-018-0190-8. Epub 2018 Mar 2.
6
Comparison of Endoscope-Assisted Coblation Adenoidectomy to Conventional Curettage Adenoidectomy in Terms of Postoperative Eustachian Tube Function.内镜辅助下低温等离子腺样体切除术与传统腺样体刮除术术后咽鼓管功能的比较
J Craniofac Surg. 2020 Jun;31(4):919-923. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000006039.
7
Endoscopic assisted powered adenoidectomy versus conventional adenoidectomy - a randomised controlled trial.内镜辅助动力腺样体切除术与传统腺样体切除术的随机对照试验
J Laryngol Otol. 2019 Apr;133(4):289-293. doi: 10.1017/S0022215119000550.
8
Comparative analysis of conventional cold curettage versus endoscopic assisted coblation adenoidectomy.传统冷刮除术与内镜辅助低温等离子腺样体切除术的对比分析
J Laryngol Otol. 2019 Apr;133(4):294-299. doi: 10.1017/S0022215119000227. Epub 2019 Mar 19.
9
Curettage adenoidectomy versus endoscopic microdebrider adenoidectomy in children: A randomized controlled trial.儿童刮除术腺样体切除术与内镜下微切割器腺样体切除术的随机对照试验
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2019 Apr;119:63-69. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.01.018. Epub 2019 Jan 16.
10
Growth and mouth breathers.生长与口呼吸。
J Pediatr (Rio J). 2019 Mar-Apr;95 Suppl 1:66-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jped.2018.11.005. Epub 2019 Jan 3.