MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How much do you change? An evaluation of the anatomical consequences of maxillomandibular advancement surgery

2018· article· en· W3175683695 on OpenAlexaff
Cathy Ong Ly, Benjamin D. Rubin, Ali Tassi, Timothy D. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCleft Lip and Palate Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstructive sleep apneaAirwaySleep apneaCephalometryApneaSoft palateOrthodonticsDentistrySurgeryAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a chronic sleep disorder characterized by recurrent collapse of the upper airway causing complete or partial blockage during sleep. Severity of sleep apnea and surgical success rate of MMA surgery is often characterized by the apnea‐hypopnea index (AHI) which evaluates these events per hour. Maxillomandibular advancement surgery (MMA) is an effective intervention for OSA with a surgical success rate exceeding 85%. However, details regarding which anatomical features are changed by MMA within the pharyngeal airway remain unclear. Previous studies demonstrate that the velopharyngeal region (VPR) posterior to the soft palate, has the greatest obstruction potential during OSA. Accordingly, it is hypothesized that MMA surgery will specifically alter VPR, increasing anterior to posterior distance in the velopharynx. Methods To address the hypothesis, a retrospective analysis of anterior to posterior distances of the VPR were measured in cephalometric x‐rays of OSA patients before and after MMA. The experimental sample consisted of twenty‐two patients (11 males and 11 females) with a mean age of 44 ± 13.9 years. Three key measurements were obtained by lateral cephalometric analysis consisting of two velopharyngeal anteroposterior lengths (VAPL1,2) and the minimal velopharyngeal anteroposterior length (VAPLM). All distances were measured electronically (Osirix, 9.0.1) and parallel to the occlusal plane (OP), VAPL2 were measured directly on the OP, and VAPL1 were measured 10 mm above the OP. Results Apnea‐hyponea index prior to MMA was considered in the severe range with a mean of 48 ± 31 events per hour. Following MMA surgery, mean AHI was reduced to 14 ± 15 and considered to be in the mild range of OSA. Mean change in distances among the three variables VAPL1, VAPL2, and VAPLM, were 1.6 ± 5.4 mm, 3.9 ± 5.0 mm and 4.7 ± 3.0 mm, respectively. Average VAPL1 pre‐MMA surgery was 13.5 ± 4.5 mm and subsequently was 15.1 ± 4.2 mm post‐MMA surgery. Average VAPL2 pre‐MMA and post MMA increased from 8.8 ± 3.1 mm to 12.7 ± 4.3 mm, respectively. The mean VAPLM after MMA surgery increased significantly to 10.6 ± 3.6 mm compared to before surgery, 5.9 ± 2.6 mm, (t 21 = 7.37, p < 0.001). Overall, there was a strong correlation between mean VAPL1 and VAPL2 (r = 0.835), (t 20 = 4.55, p < 0.001) and between VAPL2 and VAPLM (r = 0.738), (t 20 = 2.81, p < 0.01). Conclusion Maxillomandibular advancement surgery does significantly alter the minimal velopharyngeal region and decreases AHI. Based on the results of this experiment, the greatest change in unidimensional airway lengths occurs at the minimal VPR. This enhances our understanding by identifying intrinsic anatomical airway changes arising from MMA and may be useful for clinicians and surgeons treating OSA. More precise measurements of volume will further explore how regional airway anatomy is altered during MMA. In a pilot study, computed tomography (CT) scan analysis of incremental MMA on a cadaver demonstrates the ability to correlate regional linear measurements and relate them to volumetric outcomes. Future directions will explore volumetric alteration and pharyngeal tissue distortion in cadaveric patients undergoing incremental MMA. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicCleft Lip and Palate ResearchFrench-language works237,207