Impact of surgical intervention on obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and body-mass index: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Upper airway surgery for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) offers an alternative to CPAP, but its impact on weight changes is poorly studied.Purpose To systematically review published literature on the relationship between surgical intervention for OSA and changes in body mass index (BMI).Methods A literature search was conducted from 2013–2024 in five databases. Full-text English articles which examined BMI changes in adults with OSA pre- and post-surgery were included. The quality of each study was assessed independently by two researchers using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. This study was reported according to the PRISMA-ScR.Results Eleven studies, involving 406 patients from six countries were included. Most patients were males (88.4%) with a mean age of 40 years old. The pre-operative BMI were higher [27.8 kg/m2 (SD = 2.6)] compared to a BMI of 27.7 kg/m2 (SD = 1.3) at 21.0 months post-operation. The pre-operative Epworth Sleepiness Score was 13.28 (SD = 6.36), while the apnea-hypopnea index was 41.2 (SD = 16.88), indicating that most patients were diagnosed with severe OSA. The average oxygen desaturation index was 35.63 (SD = 11.17). The meta-analysis showed no significant BMI changes after surgery (mean difference:-0.29; 95% CI:-0.80 to 0.21; I2 = 30%). Findings were consistent with no publication bias found.Conclusions Upper airway surgery for OSA does not significantly affect BMI. The authors propose closer monitoring of weight changes following upper airway surgery, as weight fluctuations can impact the outcomes of surgery. Unchanged weight post-surgery may be attributed to suboptimal OSA treatment.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".