Coblation Versus Radiofrequency for Tongue Base Reduction in Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective The objective of this study is to determine the effectiveness and safety profile of coblation tongue base reduction (CBTR) compared to radiofrequency base of tongue (RFBOT) reduction on sleep‐related outcomes in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Data Sources PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases. Review Methods Literature search by 2 independent authors was conducted using the abovementioned databases. Studies on CBTR and RFBOT as part of OSA treatment in adult patients with pre‐ and postoperative apnea–hypopnea index (AHI) were included. Direct meta‐analysis and single‐arm meta‐analysis were conducted to compare sleep‐related outcomes (AHI, apnea index [AI], surgical success rates, Epworth sleepiness score [ESS], SpO 2 , body mass index [BMI], and visual analog scale [VAS]) between both groups. Results A total of 40 studies with a total of 1940 patients were included, of which 1440 individuals who underwent tongue base reduction interventions (RF = 306, RF + UPPP = 656, and coblation + UPPP = 482) met inclusion criteria. Pooled analysis showed significant improvements in AHI (CBTR = −22.84, RFBOT = −11.14), AI (CBTR = 15.64, RFBOT = −5.26), ESS (CBTR = −7.59, RFBOT = −7.18), mean oxygen saturation (CBTR = 7.43, RFBOT = 4.25), mean BMI (CBTR = −0.69, RFBOT = −4.09), and snoring visual analog scale (CBTR = −16.20, RFBOT = −18.21). Surgical success rate (postoperative AHI < 20 and drop >50% from baselines) was 70% for CBTR and 43% for RFBOT. Conclusion Both interventions decreased sleep‐related outcomes in adult patients with OSA. Coblation appears to exhibit superiority over radiofrequency with a similar safety profile. However, further studies with direct comparisons between both interventions must be performed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".