Immediate Use of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea Following Transsphenoidal Pituitary Surgery: A Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients who undergo transsphenoidal pituitary resection have an elevated risk of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) yet their outcomes and the safety of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) remains unclear. Our study objective was to determine the incidence of complications related to the use of early positive airway pressure following pituitary resection. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients who underwent endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary tumor resection between January 1, 2005 and March 24, 2016 at our institution, including those with diagnosed or suspected OSA. We compared characteristics and postoperative complications of OSA patients who did and did not receive CPAP postoperatively. RESULTS: In total, 427 patients underwent transsphenoidal pituitary resection. Of these, 64 (15%) had OSA. Acromegaly was more common in patients with OSA (42% vs. 10%; P<0.001) but not Cushing Disease (19% vs. 16%; P=0.54). Hypoxia was more common in patients with OSA as compared to those without (14% vs. 5%; P<0.001) and one patient with OSA was reintubated compared with none in the control group (P=0.017). Eight patients had CPAP applied in the immediate postoperative period and the incidence of postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, infection, and pneumocephalus was similar between OSA patients with and without CPAP. DISCUSSION: Our case series of patients with OSA who received CPAP immediately following transsphenoidal pituitary resection resulted in similar rates of surgical complications. Our results support further investigation to establish the safety of CPAP in this population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".