Efficacy of Orthognathic Surgery in OSAS Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Abstract

Background: Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) is a prevalent condition characterised by repeated episodes of partial or complete obstruction of the upper airway during sleep, leading to disrupted sleep and associated morbidities. Orthognathic surgery (OGS) has been proposed as a treatment option for OSAS, aimed at anatomically repositioning the maxillofacial structures to alleviate airway obstruction. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of OGS in reducing apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) scores among OSAS patients.

Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search across multiple databases for studies assessing the outcomes of OGS in OSAS patients, focusing on changes in AHI and ESS scores. The inclusion criteria encompassed observational studies, cohort studies, and randomised control trials. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. Random-effects meta-analysis was utilised to pool mean differences (MD) of AHI and ESS scores preoperatively and postoperatively, with 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated.

Results: A total of 8 studies met the inclusion criteria, where OGS was shown to be slightly more effective in correcting OSAS than the other modalities assessed, primarily CPAP. The pooled MD for AHI demonstrated a significant reduction in scores post-OGS (MD = 29.84, 95% CI: 14.17-45.50, p < 0.0001) with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 95%). For ESS, the pooled MD indicated a non-significant reduction (MD = 1.91, 95% CI: -1.29 to 5.12, p = 0.24) with high heterogeneity (I² = 81%).

Conclusion: Orthognathic surgery appears to be an effective intervention for reducing AHI in patients with OSAS, suggesting a potential to improve the objective measures of sleep apnea. However, the effect on subjective sleepiness scores, as evaluated by ESS, was not statistically significant. The high heterogeneity among studies warrants individualised patient assessment when considering OGS for OSAS. Further research is needed to identify factors contributing to the variability of outcomes and to assess the long-term benefits and risks associated with the procedure.