4.2 Article

Vitamin D levels in children with recurrent tonsillitis

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2010.12.006

Keywords

Children; Vitamin D; Tonsillectomy; Infection; Recurrent tonsillitis; Cathelicidin; Defensin

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: Although recurrent tonsillitis can be the consequence of defects in immune system, the exact etiology of recurrent tonsillitis is not clear. In this study, our aim was to determine the serum vitamin D levels and vitamin D receptor polymorphism among children undergone tonsillectomy due to the recurrent tonsillitis. Methods: A 106 children undergone tonsillectomy due to recurrent tonsillitis and a 127 healthy children aging between 2 and 12 years were enrolled in this study, to determine serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level and vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms (Apa1, Taq 1, fok1). Serum vitamin D level was measured with ELISA (nmol/L) and receptor gene polymorphism was determined by PCR. Vitamin D serum level below 80 nmol/L was accepted as insufficient. Results: The average serum vitamin D level was 176 +/- 79 nmol/L in recurrent tonsillitis group and 193 +/- 56 nmol/L in control group. There was no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.13). In recurrent tonsillitis group, 18% (n = 15) of children had their serum vitamin D levels below 80 nmol/L The vitamin D receptor gene polymorphism (APA1, TAQ 1, FOK 1) in each group was compared (AA, Aa, aa, TT, Tt, tt, FF, Ff, ff). There was no significant difference between the two groups. The vitamin D serum levels and receptor sub-genotypes are also compared, and there was no significant difference between the groups. Conclusion: There is no difference between the serum vitamin D level and receptor gene polymorphism among children with recurrent tonsillitis and healthy children. But vitamin D insufficiency is more prevalent in children with recurrent tonsillitis group (18%). (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available