Impacts of conservative treatment on the clinical manifestations of obstructive sleep apnea-systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a chronic disease with a high populational prevalence that is characterized as airway closure during sleep. Treatment is multidisciplinary and varies according to each case. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), oral appliances, and surgery are the primary therapeutic options. Non-invasive conservative treatments such as sleep hygiene, positional therapy, physical exercises, and weight loss aim to reduce the worsening of the disease while being complementary to the invasive primary treatment. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of non-invasive conservative therapies on the clinical manifestations of OSA syndrome (OSA), compared with other interventions. METHOD: This was a systematic review with meta-analysis. The searches were performed without filters for the time period, type of publication, or language. Randomized clinical trials on subjects over 18 years of age diagnosed with untreated OSA were included. Responses to non-invasive conservative treatment were compared with responses to the primary intervention. Primary outcomes were assessed using the Epworth Sleepiness Scale and/or Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ). RESULTS: A total of eight studies were included in the review. The heterogeneity of the effect was estimated at 89.77%. Six studies compared conservative treatment with CPAP, one with oral appliances, and one with oropharyngeal exercises. Using the Epworth Sleepiness Scale measurements, the standardized difference in the estimated means, based on the random-effects model, was 0.457 (95% CI (1.082 to 0.169)) and the mean result did not differ significantly from zero (z = 1.43; p = 0.153). The conservative therapies assessed in this study improved the subjective quality of sleep, although the post-treatment ESE scores did not show significant results. The reduction in AHI and better outcomes in the evaluated domains, as well as in cognition and mood, were superior in the groups that received CPAP and IOD. CONCLUSION: The most commonly used treatments of choice for OSA are invasive, including the use of CPAP, oral appliances, and surgeries, being the most utilized options. This study demonstrated that non-invasive conservative treatments, such as sleep hygiene, yield results as effective as invasive treatments. Further studies are needed to confirm this result and to predict whether invasive treatment can be used as the primary treatment or only as a supplement.

Rapid maxillary expansion and obstructive sleep apnea: A review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: OSAS during childhood leads to significant physical and neuropsychomotor impairment. Thus, it needs to be recognized and treated early in order to avoid or attenuate the chronic problems associated with OSAS, which are deleterious to a child's development. Adenotonsillectomy and, in select cases, continuous positive airwaypressure (CPAP) have been the preferred treatments for OSAS in children, and yet they are ineffective at fully ameliorating the disease. Minimally invasive treatments have recently been proposed, comprising intra-oral and extra-oral devices as well as speech therapy. Objetive: to conduct a meta-analysis on studies from around the world that used rapid maxillary expansion (RME) to treat OSAS in children. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of studies using RME for OSA treatment in children. A literature survey was conductedusing PubMed and Medline for English articles published up to December 2014 with the following descriptors: SleepApnea, Obstructive, Children, Treatment, Orthodontic, Othopaedic, Maxillaryexpansion. Studies were included in the meta-analysisif they were case-controlled studies, randomized, and involved non-syndromic children aged 0 to 12years old diagnosed with OSA by the polysomnography apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) before and after the intervention, submitted RME only. RESULTS: In all, 10 articles conformed to the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. The total sample size across all these articles was 215 children, having a mean age of 6.7 years,of whom58.6%were male. The mean AHI during the follow-up was -6.86 (p <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that rapid maxillary expansion (RME) in children with OSAS appears to be an effective treatment for this syndrome. Further randomized clinical studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of RME in adults.

Randomized controlled study of a mandibular advancement appliance for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea in children: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The current limited evidence may be suggestive that mandibular advancement appliance (MAAs) result in improvements in AHI scores, but it is not possible to conclude that MAAs are effective to treat paediatric OSA.There are significant weaknesses in the existing evidence due primarily to absence of control groups, small sample sizes, lack of randomization and short-term results. AIM: the objective of the present study was to evaluate MAAs in children with OSA. METHODS: Children presenting an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) greater than or equal to one event per hour were considered to be apneic. This group of children with AHI greater than or equal to one was randomly divided through a draw into two subgroups: half of them in an experimental subgroup and half of them in a control subgroup. In the experimental subgroup, molds of each of these children's maxillary and mandibular arches were taken using standard molds and molding material. The control group did not use any intraoral device and did not undergo any type of treatment for OSAS. The MAAs used in this study had the aim of achieving mandibular advancement, thereby correcting the mandibular position and dental occlusion, and perhaps increasing the airway and treating OSAS. After 12 consecutive months of use of the mandibular advancement devices, polysomnography examinations using the same parameters as in the initial examinations were requested for both the experimental and the control subgroup. RESULTS: There was a decrease in AHI in the experimental group and an increase in the control group, with statistical significance. These data were used to calculate the sample size, which was 28 children in total in the groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was a decrease in AHI one year after implementing use of mandibular advancement devices, in comparison with the group that did not use these devices.