Upper airway stimulation vs other upper airway surgical procedures for OSA: a meta-analysis

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. © 2021, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.