4.7 Article

Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome -: Fifty-one consecutive patients treated by maxillofacial surgery

出版社

AMER THORACIC SOC
DOI: 10.1164/ajrccm.162.2.9904058

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The place of surgical treatment in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) remains unclear. Uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (UPPP) has a response rate of 41% overall and only 5% when retrolingual narrowing is present. Thus, in cases with suspected hypopharyngeal collapse maxillofacial surgery has been proposed with improved results. The Stanford group has designed a step-by-step surgical procedure tailored to the specific anatomical abnormalities encountered in each patient. The goal is to avoid a full maxillomandibular advancement osteotomy (MMO), at least in a subgroup of patients, beginning with a limited mandibular osteotomy (with or without hyoid myotomy and hyothyroidopexy and with or without UPPP) (phase 1 surgery). In this procedure MMO is performed as the second or third step (phase 2 surgery). The present study reports on our prospective experience with 51 consecutive patients (64 surgical procedures) treated by the step-by-step maxillofacial surgery previously described by the Stanford team, Only 2 of the 53 patients initially treated were lost for follow-up, Surgery was considered a success if the postoperative apnea and hypopnea index (AHI) was less than 15/h with at least a 50% reduction. Forty-four patients had phase 1 surgery. The success rate was 22.7% (10 of 44). The mean AHI was unchanged with a trend for reduction in the apnea index. Twenty patients had maxillomandibular advancement surgery (phase 2) (13 failures of phase 1, 7 patients primarily because of facioskeletal deformities). The AHI decreased from 59 +/- 29/h to 11 +/- 9/h after phase 2. Of the patients 75% (15 of 20) were considered to have had a successful outcome. In conclusion, phase 1 does not seem effective in most patients with OSAS. The results of phase 2 surgery are successful in young patients with severe OSAS even if the surgical technique is more aggressive.

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

4.7
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