Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36870974›Full record

SynthesisJournal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale2023

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

Moayyad Malas, Awwadh A Althobaiti, Abdullah Sindi, Afnan F Bukhari, Faisal Zawawi

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Transoral Endoscopic-Assisted Adenoidectomy: A Prospective Study.International archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Moayyad MalasDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, 21589, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Awwadh A AlthobaitiDepartment of Surgery - Section of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Abdullah SindiDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, 21589, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Afnan F BukhariDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, 21589, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Faisal ZawawiDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, 21589, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. fzawawi@kau.edu.sa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2512-407X
King Abdulaziz University · SAKing Abdulaziz Medical City · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThere 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

methodsA 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.

resultsAfter 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.

conclusionThere 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.

Indexed as

AdenoidectomyBlood Loss, SurgicalChildHumansPostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative HemorrhageRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicConventional curettage adenoidectomyNetwork meta-analysisSurgical techniquesSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36870974
PMCPMC9985239
OpenAlexW4323074767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.