| Title |
A novel nasopharyngeal stent for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: a case series of nasopharyngeal stenting versus continuous positive airway pressure
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00405-015-3815-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maximilian Traxdorf, Michael Hartl, Florian Angerer, Christopher Bohr, Philipp Grundtner, Heinrich Iro |
| Abstract |
The objective of the study was to investigate the first-night treatment success of a nasopharyngeal stent compared to standard nCPAP-titration. This is a case series and a single-center study. Eight participants (n = 8) were selected with untreated obstructive sleep apnea with a prestudy AHI ≥10. A newly developed nasopharyngeal stent was tested individually versus standard nCPAP-titration. Cardiorespiratory polysomnography was performed on two consecutive nights (random order: stent, nCPAP). The AHI, the number of obstructive apneas and hypopneas, the mean oxygen saturation, and the minimum oxygen saturation were compared before and after using the nasopharyngeal stent or standard nCPAP. The AHI value before treatment (AHIpre) was 31.1 ± 12.0 (mean ± standard deviation). After inserting the AlaxoStent, the mean AHIstent was 19 ± 12.0 compared to mean AHInCPAP 8.2 ± 11.9 with standard nCPAP-titration. Both nasopharyngeal stenting and nCPAP-titration could reduce the mean number of obstructive apneas by >94 %. Compared to responder rates of classic surgical interventions like uvulopalatopharyngoplasty or multi-level surgery, the nasopharyngeal stent seems to give a comparable responder rate of 50 %. There were no complications associated with the use of the stent and it was well tolerated by all subjects. Nasopharyngeal stenting widens the range of non-invasive mechanical treatment and seems to be an effective mechanical therapeutic alternative to surgery in nCPAP non-compliant patients with OSA. Careful selection of the patient population is a prerequisite of treatment and therefore it should be reserved for individual cases only. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 40 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 20% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Researcher | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 9 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 10% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 10 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 November 2015.
All research outputs
#18,430,119
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#1,642
of 3,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,080
of 285,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#12
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,073 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 285,068 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.