Evidence Hub

Comparison of the postoperative in-hospital versus at-home recovery quality and circadian rhythm status in preschool kids after adenotonsillectomy: a cohort and observational study

Q. Qiu, Ying-Yi Xu, Yonghong Tan, Changzhi Sun, Yufeng Liang, Na Zhang, Tianyun Zhao, Xingrong Song

Translational Pediatrics, 2023

61 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background At present, minimally invasive surgery is often used in paediatric patients as a day surgery to promote rapid post-operative recovery. Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome (OSAS) Patients recovery in the hospital or at home after surgery may differ in terms of recovery quality and circadian rhythm status because of sleep disruption; however, this remains unknown. Pediatric patients usually unable to explain their feelings effectively, and objective indicators to measure recovery situation in different environments are promising. This study was conducted to compare the impact of in-hospital and at-home postoperative recovery quality (primary outcome) and circadian rhythm (as measured via the salivary melatonin level) (secondary outcome) in preschool-age patients. Methods This was a cohort, non-randomized and exploratory observational study. A total of 61 children aged 4 to 6 years who were scheduled to receive adenotonsillectomy were recruited and assigned to recover either in the hospital (Hospital group) or at home (Home group) after surgery. There were no differences in the patient characteristics and perioperative variables between the Hospital and Home groups at baseline. They received the treatment and anesthesia in the same way. The patients’ preoperative and up to 28 days post-surgery OSA-18 questionnaires were harvested. Moreover, their pre- and post-surgery salivary melatonin concentrations, body temperature, three-night postoperative sleep diaries, pain…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 61 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