FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2004160993> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2004160993 endingPage "389" @default.
• W2004160993 startingPage "385" @default.
• W2004160993 abstract "Free AccessSurgeryNasopharyngeal Tube: A Simple and Effective Tool to Screen Patients Indicated for Glossopharyngeal Surgery Shuhua Li, M.D., Dahai Wu, M.S., Jimin Bao, M.D., Jie Qin, M.S. Shuhua Li, M.D. Address correspondence to: ShuHua Li, M.D., Department of Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, General Hospital of Shenyang Military Area Command, No.83, Wenhua Road, Shenhe District, Shenyang, 110840, China+86 13352457067+86 24 28856253 E-mail Address: [email protected] Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, General Hospital of Shenyang Military Area Command, Shenyang, China Search for more papers by this author , Dahai Wu, M.S. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, General Hospital of Shenyang Military Area Command, Shenyang, China Search for more papers by this author , Jimin Bao, M.D. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Liaoning Jinqiu Hospital, Shenyang, China Search for more papers by this author , Jie Qin, M.S. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, General Hospital of Shenyang Military Area Command, Shenyang, China Search for more papers by this author Published Online:April 15, 2014https://doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.3610Cited by:9SectionsAbstractPDF ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations AboutABSTRACTStudy Objectives:The aim of this prospective controlled study was to explore the diagnostic value of repeated polysomnography (PSG) post-nasopharyngeal tube insertion in the setting of glossopharyngeal obstruction in obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS).Methods:Patients were eligible for this study if they were diagnosed as OSAHS by the first PSG and presented with moderate to severe OSAHS by repeated PSG scanning post-nasopharyngeal tube insertion (NPT-PSG). Fifty-nine patients were enrolled into this study and assigned to received either modified uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (H-UPPP; n = 25) or H-UPPP in combination with glossopharyngeal surgery (n = 34).Results:General data and PSG data were collected prior to and following nasopharyngeal tube insertion and were found not to be significantly different. However, both the PSG and Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS) were significantly superior in the combination group compared to the UPPP alone group post-surgery. The success rates of surgery were 82.3% and 40.0%, respectively.Conclusion:Patients with moderate to severe OSAHS post-nasopharyngeal tube insertion generally have glossopharyngeal obstruction. Glossopharyngeal surgery can significantly improve surgical outcome in the setting of OSAHS.Citation:Li S; Wu D; Bao J; Qin J. Nasopharyngeal tube: a simple and effective tool to screen patients indicated for glossopharyngeal surgery. J Clin Sleep Med 2014;10(4):385-389.INTRODUCTIONObstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) is characterized by apnea and hypoventilation arising from the collapse or obstruction of the upper respiratory tract during sleep. OSAHS may be accompanied by symptoms such as snoring, disordered sleep structure, frequent decreases in blood oxygen saturation, and daytime sleepiness.1 The key feature of OSAHS is the collapse or obstruction of the upper respiratory tract during sleep. The oropharyngeal zone is most commonly obstructed, and the glossopharyngeal airway is the next most commonly obstructed.2,3 However, it is difficult to confirm or exclude the diagnosis of glossopharyngeal obstruction. Conventional physical examination, electronic endoscopy and computed tomography (CT) examination can offer some clues in the waking state of the patient,4–6 but the most accurate diagnosis depends on the airway examination during sleep. Endoscopic airway examination and imaging examination during sedative-induced sleep can be used to observe morphological changes of the glossopharyngeal area during apnea, and can be used to confirm or exclude the presence of glossopharyngeal airway obstruction.7 Whether inspection performed during induced sleep represents the actual condition of the airway during normal sleep is uncertain. Continuous airway pressure measurements or the AG200 diagnostic system require special equipment and training,8,9 thus limiting their broad use. Nasopharyngeal intubation is generally used to rescue the upper respiratory tract obstruction.10,11 In recent years, some scholars have attempted to use nasopharyngeal intubation to treat adult OSAHS, which has some demonstrable efficacy.12,13 Theoretically, nasopharyngeal intubation can keep the respiratory tract from the naris to the peak of the nasopharyngeal tube unobstructed. Hence, if nasopharyngeal intubation is ineffective, airway obstruction is likely within the respiratory tract, below the peak of the nasopharyngeal tube. Based on this, we placed the peak of the nasopharyngeal tube at the level of the free edge of the soft palate and then repeated the PSG (NPT-PSG) to confirm glossopharyngeal obstruction to guide subsequent glossopharyngeal surgical treatment.BRIEF SUMMARYCurrent Knowledge/Study Rationale: The glossopharyngeal airway is the second most commonly obstructed site in adult obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS). However, the diagnosis of glossopharyngeal obstruction is challenging. The aim of this study was to explore the diagnostic value of repeated polysomnography following insertion of a nasopharyngeal tube (NPT-PSG) in the setting of glossopharyngeal obstruction in OSAHS.Study Impact: NPT-PSG is a simple and effective tool used to screen patients who are indicated for glossopharyngeal surgery. Patients with moderate-to-severe OSAHS diagnosed by NPT-PSG generally present with glossopharyngeal airway obstruction. Glossopharyngeal surgery can significantly improve surgical outcomes in the setting of OSAHS.MATERIALS AND METHODSSubjectsThe current study was a prospective clinically controlled study. Subjects were selected from inpatients in the Department of Otolaryngology at our hospital from January 2010 to May 2012. Patients were eligible for the study if they met criteria including: (1) confirmed diagnosis of OSAHS; (2) male; (3) no significant rhinal or nasopharyngeal obstructive diseases; (4) no craniofacial structural abnormalities such as micrognathia; (5) apnea hypopnea index (AHI) ≥ 15/h by PSG post-placement of the nasopharyngeal tube; (6) inability or unwillingness to use continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP); (7) strong desire for surgical treatment; and (8) providing signed and informed consent.Sleep Monitoring Before and After Placement of Nasopharyngeal TubeSleep monitoring was conducted with the Polywin PSG system (Respironics, USA). In accordance with sleep monitoring regulations and diagnostic criteria of OSAHS set by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine,14 patients who were diagnosed OSAHS for the first time and who planned surgical treatment, were entered into the examination procedure of nasopharyngeal tube insertion. This study was approved by the local ethics committee. All patients provided written informed consent. The nasopharyngeal tube was placed as previously reported,13 with an internal diameter of 7 mm in 35 patients and 8 mm in 24 patients, respectively. Proper or successful placement of the nasopharyngeal tube should be fixed properly in the anterior naris to prevent dislocation during sleep and the inferior extremity slightly exceeded the free edge of soft palate. Then PSG was repeated (NTP-PSG), with the procedures and data collection approaches the same as with the first PSG.Besides PSG, all patients received conventional physical and auxiliary examinations, including Friedman tongue position (FTP) grading, CT examination, conventional electronic endoscopy of the upper respiratory tract, and Muller's manoeuvre and observation.4–6Grouping, Surgical Procedure, Follow-Up, and Efficacy AssessmentPotential rhinal and nasopharyngeal diseases had been excluded in the patients prior to enrolment into the study, and thus rhinal and nasopharyngeal surgeries were not conducted. If the AHI was ≥ 15/h after nasopharyngeal tube insertion, glossopharyngeal obstruction was considered. In combination with the above and conventional examination results, FTP grading, endoscopy, and CT results, treatment with modified UPPP15 combined with glossopharyngeal surgery was suggested. All patients were well informed of their disease condition and surgery, and it was noted that some patients agreed only to treatment with UPPP but refused glossopharyngeal surgery. Therefore, there were 2 patient groups who were comparable in terms of the collated general data. However, these patient groups received different surgical treatment schemas: modified UPPP and modified UPPP in combination with glossopharyngeal surgery. All patients were followed up > 12 months (an average of 16 months). After 12 months, both PSG and ESS scoring were repeated. Patients were dropped from the study if postoperative PSG and ESS data could not be obtained. The absolute change and improvement in the rate of AHI, lowest oxygen saturation (LaSO2), and ESS scores were calculated. The number of patients showing a reduction ≥ 50% in the AHI to levels below 20, 15, 10, and 5 events/h were counted.16 Surgical outcomes were classified as cured (AHI < 5) or markedly effective (AHI decreasing > 50% and ≤ 20) and inefficient (beyond cure and markedly effective criteria). Success was defined as cure and markedly effective outcomes, and failure as inefficient outcome.Statistical AnalysisSPSS 13.0 software program (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) was used for statistical analysis. ESS and PSG data were compared (1) between the 2 groups; and (2) before and after surgery. The success rate of surgery was compared between the 2 groups. Continuous data were analyzed using the Student t-test, and categorical data were analyzed using the χ2 test.RESULTSPatient DemographicsNPT-PSG was planned in 131 patients diagnosed with OSAHS. Three patients complained of nasal cavity or nasopharyngeal pain, significant discomfort, and difficulty falling asleep; thus the NPT-PSG was incomplete, and these 3 patients were excluded from the study. An additional 63 patients were removed from the study for AHI < 15 on NPT-PSG. Of the remaining 65 patients, 6 did not complete 12-month follow-up and were subsequently dropped from the study. Finally, 59 patients were enrolled into the current study, with a mean age of 39.42 ± 7.53 years (range 21 to 56 years), mean body mass index (BMI) of 28.66 ± 2.91 kg/m2 (range 20.0 to 35.7 kg/m2), mean AHI of 40.52 ± 4.77/h (range 21.2 to 96.5/h), mean LaSO2 of 0.66 ± 0.10 (range 0.41 to 0.87), and mean ESS score of 11.22 ± 5.08 (range 2 to 21). All patients had evidence of snoring, breathlessness, and apnea during sleep, daytime somnolence and fatigue, morning headache, and poor memory. Tonsil sizes of 0, I, II, III, and IV were found in 0, 14, 14, 18, and 13 cases, respectively. Friedman tongue position I, II, III, and IV were found in 5, 15, 26, and 13 cases, respectively. Friedman stage I, II, and III were found in 10, 29, and 20 cases, respectively. There were also 26 patients who presented with lingua hypertrophy and 8 patients who presented with lingual tonsil hypertrophy confirmed by endoscopic examination.Grouping and Data Comparison between GroupsAll patients were assigned according to the willingness of the patient to receive modified UPPP (n = 25) and modified UPPP in combination with glossopharyngeal surgery (n = 34). Some procedures were applied according to the causes of glossopharyngeal obstruction and included UPPP in combination with midline partial glossectomy (n = 18),17 UPPP in combination with lingual base suspension (n = 11),18 and UPPP in combination with lingual tonsil resection (n = 5). General data, ESS scores, tonsil size, Friedman stage, endoscopic results, and PSG data prior to and following nasopharyngeal tube insertion were not statistically different between the 2 groups (see Tables 1 and 2). AHI, LaSO2, and ESS post-surgery were statistically superior in the UPPP in combination with the glossopharyngeal group compared with the UPPP alone group (Table 3).Table 1 Preoperative clinical data comparison of both groups (mean ± SD or the number of cases)Table 1 Preoperative clinical data comparison of both groups (mean ± SD or the number of cases)Table 2 Preoperative PSG data comparison of both groups (mean ± SD)Table 2 Preoperative PSG data comparison of both groups (mean ± SD)Table 3 Postoperative group comparisonTable 3 Postoperative group comparisonData Comparison Before and After Operation in Same GroupIn the UPPP alone group, AHI, LaSO2, and ESS significantly differed before and after surgery (Figure 1), with an average absolute changes of 17.04, 0.08, and 4.88, and improvement rates of 43.5%, 12.3%, and 43.0%, respectively. The results suggested that surgery was effective. In the UPPP in combination with the glossopharyngeal surgical group, measurement of AHI, LaSO2, and ESS also showed significant differences prior to and post-surgery (Figure 1), with an average absolute change of 29.52, 0.12, and 6.68, and an improvement rate of 75.3%, 17.9%, and 60.1%, respectively. This also suggested that surgery was effective. The average absolute change and improvement rates of the 3 indices were significantly higher in the combined treatment group than in the UPPP alone group.Figure 1 Both in the UPPP alone and the combination groups, AHI, LaSO2, and ESS were significantly different before and after surgery. The improvement rates of the three indices were significantly higher in the combination treatment group than in the group treated with UPPP alone.Download FigureEfficacyBoth PSG and ESS scoring were repeated in the postoperative 12-month period (Table 4). Results showed that the curing, markedly effective, and ineffective rates were significantly different between the 2 groups (χ2 = 11.92, p = 0.003), and the successful rate of surgery was significantly higher in the combination treatment group (82.3%) than in the UPPP alone group (40.0%) (χ2 = 11.273, p = 0.001).Table 4 Efficacy of treatment: comparison of both groupsTable 4 Efficacy of treatment: comparison of both groupsDISCUSSIONObstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) results from collapse or obstruction of the upper respiratory tract during sleep.1 The first choice for treating OSAHS is continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) without the need for either AG200 or sedated endoscopic examination. However, in some patients unwilling or unable to accept CPAP, surgery is an alternative approach, and the obstructive site of the upper airway must then be diagnosed. The oropharyngeal zone is the most common site involved, closely followed by the glossopharyngeal zone.2,3 However, glossopharyngeal obstruction is difficult to diagnose. Common methods include conventional physical examination, electronic endoscopy, CT scanning in the waking state, upper airway endoscopy, and imaging examinations in sedative-induced short sleep, and continuous airway pressure measurement and AG200 localization diagnosis in whole night sleep.4–9However, these methods have some disadvantages, such as being poorly accurate, expensive, and requiring specific equipment and devices. In recent years, some investigators have tried to use the nasopharyngeal tube to treat adult OSAHS and have obtained some efficacious outcomes.12,13 Theoretically, the nasopharyngeal tube can keep the respiratory tract from naris to the peak of nasopharyngeal tube unobstructed. In this situation, if patients still have OSAHS by PSG, the airway below the peak of the nasopharyngeal tube is confirmed as being obstructed.13 Based on this, we placed the peak of the nasopharyngeal tube at the level of the free edge of the soft palate and then repeated PSG to get important information on the obstruction of the glossopharyngeal airway and below this zone. In the current study, an AHI ≥ 15 post-nasopharyngeal tube placement was the key criterion for treatment with glossopharyngeal surgery.Potential rhinal and nasopharyngeal diseases had been excluded prior to surgery, and thus rhinal and nasopharyngeal surgeries were unnecessary under these situations. All patients were well informed of their disease condition. According to the willingness of the patients, 25 patients agreed to UPPP and refused glossopharyngeal surgery; the other 34 patients received both surgical procedures. The two groups were comparable in terms of general data, ESS scores, and PSG results prior to and following nasopharyngeal tube. However, postoperative indices were superior in the combination group compared with the UPPP group alone, with success rates of 82.3% vs. 40.0%. In the same group, AHI and ESS were greatly decreased and LaSO2 was significantly increased post-surgery. However, the average absolute change and the improvement rates of the three indices were significantly much greater in the combination group than was found in the UPPP alone group; this might have contributed to the different outcomes between the two groups. These results illustrate that patients with an AHI ≥ 15/h post-nasopharyngeal tube do indeed have glossopharyngeal obstruction and can greatly improve with intervention by proper glossopharyngeal surgery.It is of note that of the 25 patients undergoing UPPP alone, three recovered completely and seven had effective outcomes, yielding a success rate of 10/25. Of these 10 patients, one had an AHI of 67.7/h in the first PSG and 16.4/h post-nasopharyngeal intubation, suggesting that glossopharyngeal obstruction existed but was not dominant. UPPP improves dominant oropharyngeal obstruction, and an AHI of 18.6/h promoted a successful surgery. The other nine patients had greater than grade III hypertrophy of the palatine tonsilla (9/10). Only four of the remaining 15 patients undergoing UPPP alone showed poor surgical outcomes and presented with greater than grade III palatine tonsilla (4/15). The inferior extremity of the nasopharyngeal tube only slightly exceeded the free edge of the soft palate; therefore, hypertrophy of the palatine tonsilla might induce an AHI that is too high. In UPPP, the tonsil is resected. Consequently, UPPP alone is successful.In conclusion, repeated PSG post-placement of nasopharyngeal tube requires no specific devices and can be used as a simple and effective method to diagnose glossopharyngeal obstruction. Glossopharyngeal surgery should be recommended to patients with an AHI ≥ 15/h post-placement of the nasopharyngeal tube and with no obvious hypertrophy of the tonsils.DISCLOSURE STATEMENTThis was not an industry supported study. The authors have indicated no financial conflicts of interest.REFERENCES1 Isono S, Remmers JE, Kryger MH, Roth T, Dement WCAnatomy and physiology of upper airway obstruction. Principles and Practice of Sleep Medicine2nd edPhiladelphia: Saunders; 1994. Google Scholar2 Soares D, Sinawe H, Folbe AJet al.Lateral oropharyngeal wall and supraglottic airway collapse associated with failure in sleep apnea surgery. Laryngoscope; 2012;122:473-9, 22253047. CrossrefGoogle Scholar3 Lin HS, Rowley JA, Badr MSet al.Transoral robotic surgery for treatment of obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome. Laryngoscope; 2013;123:1811-6, 23553290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar4 Friedman M, Ibrahim H, Joseph NJStaging of obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome: a guide to appropriate treatment. Laryngoscope; 2004;114:454-9, 15091218. CrossrefGoogle Scholar5 Bachar G, Nageris B, Feinmesser Ret al.Novel grading system for quantifying upper-airway obstruction on sleep endoscopy. Lung; 2012;190:313-8, 22258421. CrossrefGoogle Scholar6 Tang XL, Yi HL, Luo HPet al.The application of CT to localize the upper airway obstruction plane in patients with OSAHS. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2012;147:1148-51, 22951429. CrossrefGoogle Scholar7 Soares D, Folbe AJ, Yoo G, Badr MS, Rowley JA, Lin HSDrug-induced sleep endoscopy vs awake Muller's maneuver in the diagnosis of severe upper airway obstruction. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2013;148:151-6, 22968669. CrossrefGoogle Scholar8 Singh A, Al-Reefy H, Hewitt R, Kotecha BEvaluation of ApneaGraph in the diagnosis of sleep-related breathing disorders. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 2008;265:1489-94, 18463886. CrossrefGoogle Scholar9 Demin H, Jingying Y, Jun W, Qingwen Y, Yuhua L, Jiangyong WDetermining the site of airway obstruction in obstructive sleep apnea with airway pressure measurements during sleep. Laryngoscope; 2002;112:2081-5, 12439185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar10 Chang AB, Masters IB, Williams GR, Harris M, O'Neil MCA modified nasopharyngeal tube to relieve high upper airway obstruction. Pediatr Pulmonol; 2000;29:299-306, 10738018. CrossrefGoogle Scholar11 Tweedie DJ, Skilbeck CJ, Lloyd-Thomas AR, Albert DMThe nasopharyngeal prong airway: an effective postoperative adjunct after adenotonsillectomy for obstructive sleep apnoea in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2007;71:563-9, 17241674. CrossrefGoogle Scholar12 Nahmias JS, Karetzky MSTreatment of the obstructive sleep apnea syndrome using a nasopharyngeal tube. Chest; 1988;94:1142-7, 3142720. CrossrefGoogle Scholar13 Huo H, Li WY, Shen P, Liu JHOne night treatment of obstructive sleep apnea and hypopnea syndrome with nasopharyngeal airway. Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi; 2010;45:382-6, 20654173. Google Scholar14 Iber C, Ancoli-Israel S, Chesson AL, Quan SFThe AASM Manual for the Scoring of Sleep and Associated Events: Rules, Terminology and Technical Specifications. Westchester, IL: American Academy of Sleep Medicine; 2007. Google Scholar15 Han D, Ye J, Lin Z, Wang J, Wang J, Zhang YRevised uvulopalatopharyngoplasty with uvula preservation and its clinical study. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec; 2005;67:213-9, 16103738. CrossrefGoogle Scholar16 Kezirian EJ, Weaver EM, Criswell MA, Vries N, Woodson T, Piccirill JFReporting results of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome surgery trials. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2011;144:496-9, 21493223. CrossrefGoogle Scholar17 Li S, Shi HLingual artery CTA-guided midline partial glossectomy for treatment of obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome. Acta Otolaryngol; 2013;133:749-54, 23448355. CrossrefGoogle Scholar18 Li S, Wu D, Shi HTreatment of obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome caused by glossoptosis with tongue-base suspension. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 2013;270:2915-20, 23649508. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Previous article Next article FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited by Guidelines of the French Society of ENT (SFORL): Drug-induced sleep endoscopy in adult obstructive sleep apnea syndromeBastier P, Gallet de Santerre O, Bartier S, De Jong A, Trzepizur W, Nouette-Gaulain K, Bironneau V, Blumen M, Chabolle F, de Bonnecaze G, Dufour X, Ameline E, Kérimian M, Latournerie V, Monteyrol P, Thiery A, Tronche S, Vergez S and Bequignon E European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases, 10.1016/j.anorl.2022.05.003, Vol. 139, No. 4, (216-225), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2022. Recommandations de la Société française d’ORL : place de l’endoscopie sous sommeil induit dans la prise en charge du SAOS de l’adulteBastier P, Gallet de Santerre O, Bartier S, De Jong A, Trzepizur W, Nouette-Gaulain K, Bironneau V, Blumen M, Chabolle F, de Bonnecaze G, Dufour X, Ameline E, Kérimian M, Latournerie V, Monteyrol P, Thiery A, Tronche S, Vergez S and Bequignon E Annales françaises d'Oto-rhino-laryngologie et de Pathologie Cervico-faciale, 10.1016/j.aforl.2022.02.009, Vol. 139, No. 4, (218-228), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2022. Interventional Drug-Induced Sleep Endoscopy: A Novel Technique to Guide Surgical Planning for Obstructive Sleep ApneaVictores A, Olson K and Takashima M Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, Vol. 13, No. 02, (169-174), Online publication date: 15-Feb-2017. Modified Friedman stage in predicting glossopharyngeal obstruction in obstructive sleep apneaWu D, Qin J, Guo X, Dai P, Li S and Han D Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 10.1080/00016489.2016.1206968, Vol. 137, No. 1, (78-81), Online publication date: 2-Jan-2017. Reoperation on patients with obstructive sleep apnea–hypopnea syndrome after failed uvulopalatopharyngoplastyLi S, Wu D and Shi H European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 10.1007/s00405-014-3344-4, Vol. 272, No. 2, (407-412), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2015. Ultrasonic Measurement of Lingual Artery and Its Application for Midline GlossectomyLiu C, Qin J, Xing D, Lu H, Yue R, Li S and Wu D Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, 10.1177/0003489420913581, (000348942091358) Diagnosis of Retrolingual Obstruction during Drug-Induced Sleep Endoscopy versus Polysomnography with Nasopharyngeal Tube in Patients with Obstructive Sleep ApneaQiao J, Qin J, Xing D, Li S and Wu D Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, 10.1177/00034894211005944, (000348942110059) Correlation between Bispectral Index and Sleep Stage of Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea-Hypopnea SyndromeLi S Archives of Otolaryngology and Rhinology, 10.17352/2455-1759.000015, , (016-019) Diagnosing Lingual Airway Obstruction Using Nasopharyngeal Tube in OSAHS: Natural Sleep vs Induced SleepLi S Archives of Otolaryngology and Rhinology, 10.17352/2455-1759.000039, , (027-031) Volume 10 • Issue 04 • April 15, 2014ISSN (print): 1550-9389ISSN (online): 1550-9397Frequency: Monthly Metrics History Submitted for publicationAugust 1, 2013Submitted in final revised formNovember 1, 2013Accepted for publicationNovember 1, 2013Published onlineApril 15, 2014 Information© 2014 American Academy of Sleep MedicineKeywordsnasopharyngeal tubeglossopharyngealOSAHSObstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndromesurgeryPDF download" @default.
• W2004160993 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2004160993 creator A5014886144 @default.
• W2004160993 creator A5041410634 @default.
• W2004160993 creator A5054541703 @default.
• W2004160993 creator A5090664741 @default.
• W2004160993 date "2014-04-15" @default.
• W2004160993 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2004160993 title "Nasopharyngeal Tube: A Simple and Effective Tool to Screen Patients Indicated for Glossopharyngeal Surgery" @default.
• W2004160993 cites W1954584841 @default.
• W2004160993 cites W1974428226 @default.
• W2004160993 cites W1981176325 @default.
• W2004160993 cites W1981218115 @default.
• W2004160993 cites W1997680684 @default.
• W2004160993 cites W2002159830 @default.
• W2004160993 cites W2022802745 @default.
• W2004160993 cites W2027437036 @default.
• W2004160993 cites W2028101080 @default.
• W2004160993 cites W2034258071 @default.
• W2004160993 cites W2041623253 @default.
• W2004160993 cites W2045870433 @default.
• W2004160993 cites W2077410219 @default.
• W2004160993 cites W2113344090 @default.
• W2004160993 cites W2152110019 @default.
• W2004160993 cites W50735026 @default.
• W2004160993 doi "https://doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.3610" @default.
• W2004160993 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/3960380" @default.
• W2004160993 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24733983" @default.
• W2004160993 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W2004160993 type Work @default.
• W2004160993 sameAs 2004160993 @default.
• W2004160993 citedByCount "10" @default.
• W2004160993 countsByYear W20041609932014 @default.
• W2004160993 countsByYear W20041609932016 @default.
• W2004160993 countsByYear W20041609932017 @default.
• W2004160993 countsByYear W20041609932020 @default.
• W2004160993 countsByYear W20041609932021 @default.
• W2004160993 countsByYear W20041609932022 @default.
• W2004160993 countsByYear W20041609932023 @default.
• W2004160993 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2004160993 hasAuthorship W2004160993A5014886144 @default.
• W2004160993 hasAuthorship W2004160993A5041410634 @default.
• W2004160993 hasAuthorship W2004160993A5054541703 @default.
• W2004160993 hasAuthorship W2004160993A5090664741 @default.
• W2004160993 hasBestOaLocation W20041609931 @default.
• W2004160993 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2004160993 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2004160993 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2004160993 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2004160993 hasConcept C2777551473 @default.
• W2004160993 hasConcept C2780586882 @default.
• W2004160993 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2004160993 hasConcept C78519656 @default.
• W2004160993 hasConceptScore W2004160993C111472728 @default.
• W2004160993 hasConceptScore W2004160993C127413603 @default.
• W2004160993 hasConceptScore W2004160993C138885662 @default.
• W2004160993 hasConceptScore W2004160993C141071460 @default.
• W2004160993 hasConceptScore W2004160993C2777551473 @default.
• W2004160993 hasConceptScore W2004160993C2780586882 @default.
• W2004160993 hasConceptScore W2004160993C71924100 @default.
• W2004160993 hasConceptScore W2004160993C78519656 @default.
• W2004160993 hasIssue "04" @default.
• W2004160993 hasLocation W20041609931 @default.
• W2004160993 hasLocation W20041609932 @default.
• W2004160993 hasLocation W20041609933 @default.
• W2004160993 hasLocation W20041609934 @default.
• W2004160993 hasOpenAccess W2004160993 @default.
• W2004160993 hasPrimaryLocation W20041609931 @default.
• W2004160993 hasRelatedWork W1586374228 @default.
• W2004160993 hasRelatedWork W2002120878 @default.
• W2004160993 hasRelatedWork W2003938723 @default.
• W2004160993 hasRelatedWork W2047967234 @default.
• W2004160993 hasRelatedWork W2118496982 @default.
• W2004160993 hasRelatedWork W2364998975 @default.
• W2004160993 hasRelatedWork W2369162477 @default.
• W2004160993 hasRelatedWork W2439875401 @default.
• W2004160993 hasRelatedWork W4238867864 @default.
• W2004160993 hasRelatedWork W2525756941 @default.
• W2004160993 hasVolume "10" @default.
• W2004160993 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2004160993 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2004160993 magId "2004160993" @default.
• W2004160993 workType "article" @default.