Evidence Hub

Adenotonsillectomy for Children with Mild Sleep-Disordered Breathing: Who Benefits?

Ronald D. Chervin, S. Gueye-Ndiaye, Mengqi Cen, R. B. Mitchell, Christopher Liu, S. Ibrahim, Alisha George, M. Hjelm et al.

Sleep, 2026

363 participants

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To examine clinically-meaningful benefit that may be achieved by early adenotonsillectomy (eAT) vs. watchful waiting with supportive care (WWSC) in children with mild sleep-disordered breathing (MSDB, snoring but little or no obstructive sleep apnea), and to identify baseline demographic, symptom, physical exam, historical, or polysomnographic features that may predict such benefit.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Secondary analysis of participants (aged 3.0-12.9 years) in the 12-month multi-center randomized clinical trial of eAT vs. WWSC for MSDB, the Pediatric Adenotonsillectomy Trial for Snoring (PATS). Meaningful benefit was defined as a composite outcome of clinically-significant change in at least 2 of 4 domains - behavior, quality of life, subjective sleepiness, and blood pressure - each of which had shown greater improvement 12 months after AT versus WWSC in PATS.

RESULTS

Among 363 participants, the mean age was 6.6 (SD 2.3) years, 199 (55%) were > 5 years old at enrollment, and 185 (51%) were male. A total of 115 (65%) vs. 73 (39%) in the eAT vs. WWSC arms, respectively, experienced clinically-meaningful improvement on ≥2 domains (p < 0.01). Among variables explored for effect modification - including demographics, health factors, symptoms and signs, and polysomnographic data - only a high Mallampati score of III or IV vs. I or II showed predictive value (OR 4.16, 95% CI [1.22, 15.6], p = 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically-meaningful positive outcomes occur more…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 363 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free