Compliance and efficacy of titratable thermoplastic versus custom mandibular advancement devices.

OBJECTIVE: To share our experiences treating patients with obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) with titratable thermoplastic (TPD) and custom-made mandibular advancement devices (MAD) and to compare these devices in terms of objective improvement and cure and treatment success (improvement/cure plus adherence at 6 months). STUDY DESIGN: Case series with planned data collection. SETTING: Tertiary care center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients with OSAHS who failed or refused both continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and surgery had a titratable oral appliance fitted. Patients were offered an office-fitted TPD or a custom-made dentist-fitted device. Assessment included pretreatment and appliance-titration polysomnography (PSG). Improvement was defined as ≥ 50% apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) reduction plus posttreatment AHI <20, and cure was defined as AHI <5. Patients were contacted at 1 and 6 months regarding treatment adherence. RESULTS: A total of 180 patients (123 TPD, 57 custom) with complete PSG data were reviewed. Improvement/cure were significantly better with the custom device overall (91.2%/71.9% vs 77.2%/52.0%, P = .024/.012). Adherence data at 1 and 6 months were obtained from 128/180 and 119/180 patients, respectively. Using an intention-to-treat analysis, those lost to follow-up were considered nonadherent. Adherence at 1/6 months was 64.9%/50.9% for custom versus 53.7%/32.5% for TPD (P = .156/.018), yielding treatment success rates (with initial improvement/cure) of 49.1%/40.4% for custom versus 27.6%/17.1% for TPD (P = .005/<.001) at 6 months. CONCLUSION: Custom-fit devices achieve higher rates of objective improvement and cure of OSAHS than TPD at the time of titration-PSG. TPDs have a high acceptance rate, low cost, and reasonable initial improvement and cure rates of 77.2% and 52.0%, respectively, but significantly poorer 6-month compliance.

The value of routine pH monitoring in the diagnosis and treatment of laryngopharyngeal reflux.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the need for pH testing in diagnosing laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). STUDY DESIGN: Case series with planned data collection. SETTING: Tertiary care center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: On the basis of symptoms and/or abnormal endoscopic findings, more than 500 patients underwent 24-hour pharyngeal pH testing at a single center (using the Dx-pH probe) between January 2009 and June 2011. A total of 163 patients not on proton-pump inhibitors at the time of study and with complete data available for analysis (pH results, body mass index, smoking status, pretest reflux symptom index) were divided into 2 groups by positive (n = 70) and negative (n = 93) Ryan Score. The Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) was compared between groups and assessed overall against Ryan Score parameters at different pH thresholds. The diagnostic utility of an RSI ≥ 13 for prediction of Ryan Score was assessed. RESULTS: No significant difference in RSI was seen between Ryan-positive (17.50 ± 11.47) and Ryan-negative (14.95 ± 11.43) patients (P = .161). Overall, RSI correlated poorly with percentage time spent below pH thresholds 6.5, 6.0, 5.5, and 5.0 and upright and supine Ryan parameters at these thresholds (as determined by linear regression analysis). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of RSI ≥ 13 for Ryan positivity were 55.7%, 47.3%, 44.3%, and 58.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our findings show that in our population of otolaryngology patients, the diagnosis of LPR cannot be reliably made on the basis of symptoms alone. Diagnosis, and in particular treatment decisions, should ideally be made on the basis of a combination of symptoms, signs, and confirmatory testing.

Transoral robotic glossectomy for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: In previous reports of transoral robotic surgery (TORS) for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS), patients underwent routine tracheotomy. We aim to assess the feasibility of performing robotically assisted partial glossectomy without tracheotomy and to assess efficacy by comparing OSAHS outcomes with those of established techniques. STUDY DESIGN: Historical cohort study with planned data collection. SETTING: Tertiary care center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty consecutive patients underwent TORS for OSAHS between October 2010 and June 2011 and were followed up with regard to complications, morbidity, and subjective and objective outcomes. Data from 27 of these patients who underwent concomitant z-palatoplasty with 6-month follow-up were compared with those of 2 matched cohorts of patients, who underwent either radiofrequency (radiofrequency base-of-tongue reduction [RFBOT]) or coblation (submucosal minimally invasive lingual excision [SMILE]) reduction of the tongue base and z-palatoplasty. RESULTS: No major bleeding or airway complications were observed. Postoperative pain and length of admission were similar between groups. All groups saw Epworth score and snore score improvement. Patients undergoing robot-assisted surgery took longer than their SMILE and RFBOT counterparts to tolerate normal diet and longer than RFBOT patients to resume normal activity. Apnea hypopnea index (AHI) reduction averaged 60.5% ± 24.9% for TORS versus 37.0% ± 51.6% (P = .042) and 32.0% ± 43.3% (P = .012) for SMILE and RFBOT, respectively. Only the robotic group achieved statistically significant improvement in minimum oxygen saturation. Surgical cure rate for TORS (66.7%) was significant compared with RFBOT (20.8%, P = .001) but not compared with SMILE (45.5%, P = .135). CONCLUSION: Robotically assisted partial glossectomy feasibly can be performed without the need for tracheotomy. This technique resulted in greater AHI reduction but increased morbidity compared with the other techniques studied.