4.6 Review

Laser-Assisted Uvulopalatoplasty for Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

SLEEP
卷 40, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/sleep/zsx004

关键词

laser-assisted uvulopalatoplasty; sleep apnea syndromes; systematic review; meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Objectives: Laser-assisted uvulopalatoplasty (LAUP) has been used as treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis for LAUP alone as treatment for OSA in adults. Methods: Three authors searched five databases (including PubMed/MEDLINE) from inception through October 30, 2016 for peer-reviewed studies, with any design/language. A study quality assessment tool was used. The PRISMA statement was followed. A meta-analysis was performed. Results: Twenty-three adult studies (717 patients) reported outcomes (age: 50 +/- 9 years, body mass index: 29 +/- 4 kg/m(2)). The pre-and post-LAUP means (M) +/- standard deviations (SDs) for apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) were 28 +/- 13 and 19 +/- 12 events/h (32% reduction). Random effects modeling for 519 patients demonstrated an AHI mean difference (MD) of -6.56 [95% CI -10.14, -2.97] events/h. Individual patient data analyses demonstrate a 23% success rate (>= 50% reduction in AHI and < 20 events/h) and an 8% cure rate. Additionally, 44% of patients had worsening of their AHI after LAUP. Lowest oxygen saturation (LSAT) improved from a M +/- SD of 80 +/- 8% to 82 +/- 7%. A limitation is that most studies were case series studies and only two were randomized controlled trials. Conclusions: In this meta-analysis, LAUP reduced AHI by 32% among all patients; while the LSAT only changed minimally. Individual data demonstrated a success rate of 23%, cure rate of 8%, and worsening of the AHI among 44% of patients. We recommend that LAUP be performed with caution or not performed at all given the unfavorable results of currently published studies.

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

4.6
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