4.2 Article

Pharyngeal dysfunction associated with early and late onset sleep disordered it breathing in children

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.109667

关键词

Sleep disordered breathing; Airway; Endoscopy; Early-onset; Pediatric

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare the frequency and type of diagnoses associated with pharyngeal dysfunction (PD) in children presenting with early versus late onset sleep disordered breathing (SDB). Methods: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study. A consecutive series of children <= 3 years old who underwent management for SDB were retrospectively identified from a prospectively kept surgical database. The early onset group was compared with two separate late onset (>= 4years old) groups. Diagnoses associated with PD included gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), swallowing dysfunction, prematurity, asthma, and obesity. Distribution of PD diagnoses, airway lesions, syndromic conditions, pulse oximetry scores, and endoscopic pattern of airway obstruction were compared. Results: 73 patients with early onset SDB were identified (51 boys, mean age 2.25 +/- 0.64 years, range 1.75-3 years) and compared with two groups of later onset SDB consisting of 75 and 72 patients with mean ages of 7.58 +/- 2.40 years and 8.04 +/- 3.34 years respectively (range 4-16 years). The early onset SDB group had a higher prevalence of PD diagnoses compared to the later onset group with 35 of 73 patients being diagnosed compared to 41 of 147 children (p = 0.01). Early onset SDB patients were more likely to have GERD or swallowing dysfunction (p < 0.01) while later onset patients more commonly presented with associated asthma or obesity (p < 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in airway lesions between groups. Conclusion: Early-onset SDB is associated with conditions causing PD more often than later-onset SDB. Identifying these conditions and optimizing their management may impact outcomes in treating pediatric SDB.

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

4.2
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