4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Change in Epworth Sleepiness Scale After Surgical Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 121, 期 7, 页码 1590-1593

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/lary.21823

关键词

Epworth Sleepiness Scale; continuous positive airway pressure; obstructive sleep apnea syndrome; excessive daytime sleepiness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives/Hypothesis: To evaluate the effect of surgical intervention for obstructive sleep apnea (USA) on patients' level of excessive daytime sleepiness as determined by the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). The ESS questionnaire is a validated measure of subjective daytime sleepiness. There have been several studies that have shown that continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) improves excessive daytime sleepiness in USA patients as measured by the ESS. Study Design: Retrospective case series. Methods: This is a study of patients who had uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (UPPP); UPPP and tonsillectomy; or UPPP, tonsillectomy, and radiofrequency ablation of the base of the tongue for USA between January 2007 and December 2009. Forty patients were identified who met the criteria of having had an ESS evaluation and polysomnography prior to surgery for USA. Results: Across all of the patients there was a mean reduction of their ESS by 5.6 +/- 4.1; t = 8.82, P < .001. Only three of the patients did not improve in their ESS scores after surgical treatment for USA. Conclusions: Surgical intervention for USA significantly improves sleepiness in USA patients as measured by the ESS. Two meta-analyses of multiple, randomized, controlled studies showed patients with mild to moderate USA treated with CPAP demonstrated an improvement in the ESS score of 1.2 points (95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.9, P = .001) and 2.94 points for patients with mild to severe USA treated with CPAP. The results of this study show an improvement in ESS after surgery that is substantially higher than previously reported with CPAP for all categories of USA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据