Chairat Neruntarat1, Pisit Wanichakorntrakul2, Kitsarawut Khuancharee3, Petcharat Saengthong4, Mongkol Tangngekkee5. 1. Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Srinakharinwirot University, Sukhumvit 23, Watana, Bangkok, Thailand. xyrata@gmail.com. 2. Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Srinakharinwirot University, Sukhumvit 23, Watana, Bangkok, Thailand. 3. Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Srinakharinwirot University, Sukhumvit 23, Watana, Bangkok, Thailand. 4. Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Police General Hospital, 492/1 Rama 1 Road, Patumwan, Bangkok, Thailand. 5. Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University, 99/209 Moo 2, Klong Luang, Rasit, Prathumthani, Thailand.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim was to compare the outcomes of upper airway stimulation (Stim) and other upper airway surgical procedures (Surg) in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). METHODS: Data sources included PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and reference lists. Relevant articles were identified from various databases according to the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Five articles with a total of 990 patients were included. The mean cure rates in the Stim group and the Surg group was 63% and 22%, and the mean success rates was 86% and 51% which were higher in the Stim group (p < 0.001). The apnea-hypopnea index reduction was -23.9 events/ hour (MD, 95% CI -25.53, -22.29) in the Stim group and -15.5 events/hour (MD, 95% CI -17.50, -13.45) in the Surg group which was greater in the Stim group (P < 0.001). Epworth Sleepiness Scale decreased -4.9 (MD, 95% CI -5.45, -4.32) in the Stim group and -5.1 (MD 95% CI -5.88, -4.37) in the Surg group without significant difference between the groups (P = 0.62). Oxygen saturation nadir improvement was 8.5% (MD 95% CI 7.05%, 9.92%) in the Stim group and 2.2% (MD 95% CI-0.22%, 4.58%) in the Surg group which was higher in the Stim group (P < 0.001). Hospital stay and readmission rate were lower in the Stim group. The timing of follow-up ranged from 2 to 13 months. CONCLUSION: Upper airway stimulation provides improved objective and similar subjective outcomes compared to other upper airway surgical procedures for selected patients with moderate to severe OSA with difficulty adhering to CPAP treatment. However, further studies are essential to confirm outcomes in the long term.
PURPOSE: The aim was to compare the outcomes of upper airway stimulation (Stim) and other upper airway surgical procedures (Surg) in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). METHODS: Data sources included PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and reference lists. Relevant articles were identified from various databases according to the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Five articles with a total of 990 patients were included. The mean cure rates in the Stim group and the Surg group was 63% and 22%, and the mean success rates was 86% and 51% which were higher in the Stim group (p < 0.001). The apnea-hypopnea index reduction was -23.9 events/ hour (MD, 95% CI -25.53, -22.29) in the Stim group and -15.5 events/hour (MD, 95% CI -17.50, -13.45) in the Surg group which was greater in the Stim group (P < 0.001). Epworth Sleepiness Scale decreased -4.9 (MD, 95% CI -5.45, -4.32) in the Stim group and -5.1 (MD 95% CI -5.88, -4.37) in the Surg group without significant difference between the groups (P = 0.62). Oxygen saturation nadir improvement was 8.5% (MD 95% CI 7.05%, 9.92%) in the Stim group and 2.2% (MD 95% CI-0.22%, 4.58%) in the Surg group which was higher in the Stim group (P < 0.001). Hospital stay and readmission rate were lower in the Stim group. The timing of follow-up ranged from 2 to 13 months. CONCLUSION: Upper airway stimulation provides improved objective and similar subjective outcomes compared to other upper airway surgical procedures for selected patients with moderate to severe OSA with difficulty adhering to CPAP treatment. However, further studies are essential to confirm outcomes in the long term.
Authors: Adam V Benjafield; Najib T Ayas; Peter R Eastwood; Raphael Heinzer; Mary S M Ip; Mary J Morrell; Carlos M Nunez; Sanjay R Patel; Thomas Penzel; Jean-Louis Pépin; Paul E Peppard; Sanjeev Sinha; Sergio Tufik; Kate Valentine; Atul Malhotra Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Erla Bjornsdottir; Brendan T Keenan; Bjorg Eysteinsdottir; Erna Sif Arnardottir; Christer Janson; Thorarinn Gislason; Jon Fridrik Sigurdsson; Samuel T Kuna; Allan I Pack; Bryndis Benediktsdottir Journal: J Sleep Res Date: 2014-11-27 Impact factor: 3.981
Authors: Miguel-Angel Martínez-García; Francisco Campos-Rodríguez; Pablo Catalán-Serra; Juan-José Soler-Cataluña; Carmen Almeida-Gonzalez; Ines De la Cruz Morón; Joaquin Durán-Cantolla; Josep-Maria Montserrat Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2012-09-13 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Peter M Baptista; Natalia Diaz Zufiaurre; Octavio Garaycochea; Juan Manuel Alcalde Navarrete; Antonio Moffa; Lucrezia Giorgi; Manuele Casale; Carlos O'Connor-Reina; Guillermo Plaza Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-02-14 Impact factor: 4.241