Maxillomandibular Advancement and Upper Airway Stimulation for Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Systematic Review

• Published in: Journal of clinical medicine Vol. 11; no. 22; p. 6782
• Main Authors: Zhou, Ning, Ho, Jean-Pierre T F, Spijker, René, Aarab, Ghizlane, de Vries, Nico, Ravesloot, Madeline J L, de Lange, Jan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 16-11-2022; MDPI
• Subjects: Age; Airway management; Body mass index; Clinical medicine; Endoscopy; Ostomy; Sleep apnea; Surgery; Surgical outcomes; Systematic Review; obstructive sleep apnea; hypoglossal nerve; maxillomandibular surgery; systematic review; therapy
• ISSN: 2077-0383; 2077-0383
• DOI: 10.3390/jcm11226782

This systematic review aimed to comparatively evaluate the efficacy and safety of maxillomandibular advancement (MMA) and upper airway stimulation (UAS) in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) treatment. A MEDLINE and Embase database search of articles on MMA and/or UAS for OSA was conducted. Twenty-one MMA studies and nine UAS studies were included. All the MMA studies demonstrated a reduction in apnea hypopnea index (AHI) postoperatively, and success rates ranged from 41.1% to 100%. Ten MMA studies reported pre- and postoperative Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS), and all but one study demonstrated a reduction in ESS. In the UAS studies, all but one demonstrated a reduction in AHI, and success rates ranged from 26.7% to 77.8%. In the eight UAS studies reporting pre- and postoperative ESS, an ESS reduction was demonstrated. No studies reported any deaths related to MMA or UAS. The most common postoperative complications after MMA and UAS were facial paresthesia in the mandibular area and discomfort due to electrical stimulation, respectively. This systematic review suggests that both MMA and UAS are effective and generally safe therapies for OSA. However, due to the limitations of the included studies, there is no evidence yet to directly compare these two procedures in OSA treatment.