Search

Objective: The benefit of bibloc over monobloc appliances in treating obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) has not been evaluated in randomized trials. We hypothesized that these types of appliances would be equally effective. Material and methods: In this multicentre, randomized equivalence trial, patients with OSA received one type of bibloc or one type of monobloc treatment. At baseline, a 1-night polygraphy study was done, and this was repeated after 1 year. The outcome was any change in the apnoea–hypopnoea index (AHI) and the limits of equivalence between the two devices were set at ±5 AHI units. Results: Of 302 patients, 146 were randomly assigned to bibloc and 156 to monobloc appliances. In 88 and 104 patients, respectively, there were significant reductions in the AHI (p < .001) with a mean change of −16.7 (95% CI −19.4 to −14.1) in the bibloc and −11.8 (−14.9 to −8.7) in the monobloc groups. The proportions of responders defined as having an AHI <10 were 68% and 65% for the bibloc and monobloc groups, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events were mild, transient and the dropouts were more frequent in the bibloc group. Conclusions: Both types of treatments positively and significantly reduced respiratory disturbances, but at the 1-year follow-up, they were not significantly different in treating OSA, with a numerically greater reduction of the AHI value with the bibloc appliance. However, the higher proportion of treatment-related adverse events and higher proportion of dropouts among bibloc users should be balanced against the advantage of a greater reduction in the AHI.

Objective: The benefit of bibloc over monobloc appliances in treating obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) has not been evaluated in randomized trials. We hypothesized that these types of appliances would be equally effective. Material and methods: In this multicentre, randomized equivalence trial, patients with OSA received one type of bibloc or one type of monobloc treatment. At baseline, a 1-night polygraphy study was done, and this was repeated after 1 year. The outcome was any change in the apnoea–hypopnoea index (AHI) and the limits of equivalence between the two devices were set at ±5 AHI units. Results: Of 302 patients, 146 were randomly assigned to bibloc and 156 to monobloc appliances. In 88 and 104 patients, respectively, there were significant reductions in the AHI (p < .001) with a mean change of −16.7 (95% CI −19.4 to −14.1) in the bibloc and −11.8 (−14.9 to −8.7) in the monobloc groups. The proportions of responders defined as having an AHI <10 were 68% and 65% for the bibloc and monobloc groups, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events were mild, transient and the dropouts were more frequent in the bibloc group. Conclusions: Both types of treatments positively and significantly reduced respiratory disturbances, but at the 1-year follow-up, they were not significantly different in treating OSA, with a numerically greater reduction of the AHI value with the bibloc appliance. However, the higher proportion of treatment-related adverse events and higher proportion of dropouts among bibloc users should be balanced against the advantage of a greater reduction in the AHI.

Objective: The benefit of bibloc over monobloc appliances in treating obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) has not been evaluated in randomized trials. We hypothesized that these types of appliances would be equally effective. Material and methods: In this multicentre, randomized equivalence trial, patients with OSA received one type of bibloc or one type of monobloc treatment. At baseline, a 1-night polygraphy study was done, and this was repeated after 1 year. The outcome was any change in the apnoea–hypopnoea index (AHI) and the limits of equivalence between the two devices were set at ±5 AHI units. Results: Of 302 patients, 146 were randomly assigned to bibloc and 156 to monobloc appliances. In 88 and 104 patients, respectively, there were significant reductions in the AHI (p < .001) with a mean change of −16.7 (95% CI −19.4 to −14.1) in the bibloc and −11.8 (−14.9 to −8.7) in the monobloc groups. The proportions of responders defined as having an AHI <10 were 68% and 65% for the bibloc and monobloc groups, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events were mild, transient and the dropouts were more frequent in the bibloc group. Conclusions: Both types of treatments positively and significantly reduced respiratory disturbances, but at the 1-year follow-up, they were not significantly different in treating OSA, with a numerically greater reduction of the AHI value with the bibloc appliance. However, the higher proportion of treatment-related adverse events and higher proportion of dropouts among bibloc users should be balanced against the advantage of a greater reduction in the AHI.

Objective: The benefit of bibloc over monobloc appliances in treating obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) has not been evaluated in randomized trials. We hypothesized that these types of appliances would be equally effective. Material and methods: In this multicentre, randomized equivalence trial, patients with OSA received one type of bibloc or one type of monobloc treatment. At baseline, a 1-night polygraphy study was done, and this was repeated after 1 year. The outcome was any change in the apnoea–hypopnoea index (AHI) and the limits of equivalence between the two devices were set at ±5 AHI units. Results: Of 302 patients, 146 were randomly assigned to bibloc and 156 to monobloc appliances. In 88 and 104 patients, respectively, there were significant reductions in the AHI (p < .001) with a mean change of −16.7 (95% CI −19.4 to −14.1) in the bibloc and −11.8 (−14.9 to −8.7) in the monobloc groups. The proportions of responders defined as having an AHI <10 were 68% and 65% for the bibloc and monobloc groups, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events were mild, transient and the dropouts were more frequent in the bibloc group. Conclusions: Both types of treatments positively and significantly reduced respiratory disturbances, but at the 1-year follow-up, they were not significantly different in treating OSA, with a numerically greater reduction of the AHI value with the bibloc appliance. However, the higher proportion of treatment-related adverse events and higher proportion of dropouts among bibloc users should be balanced against the advantage of a greater reduction in the AHI.

Objective: The benefit of bibloc over monobloc appliances in treating obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) has not been evaluated in randomized trials. We hypothesized that these types of appliances would be equally effective. Material and methods: In this multicentre, randomized equivalence trial, patients with OSA received one type of bibloc or one type of monobloc treatment. At baseline, a 1-night polygraphy study was done, and this was repeated after 1 year. The outcome was any change in the apnoea–hypopnoea index (AHI) and the limits of equivalence between the two devices were set at ±5 AHI units. Results: Of 302 patients, 146 were randomly assigned to bibloc and 156 to monobloc appliances. In 88 and 104 patients, respectively, there were significant reductions in the AHI (p < .001) with a mean change of −16.7 (95% CI −19.4 to −14.1) in the bibloc and −11.8 (−14.9 to −8.7) in the monobloc groups. The proportions of responders defined as having an AHI <10 were 68% and 65% for the bibloc and monobloc groups, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events were mild, transient and the dropouts were more frequent in the bibloc group. Conclusions: Both types of treatments positively and significantly reduced respiratory disturbances, but at the 1-year follow-up, they were not significantly different in treating OSA, with a numerically greater reduction of the AHI value with the bibloc appliance. However, the higher proportion of treatment-related adverse events and higher proportion of dropouts among bibloc users should be balanced against the advantage of a greater reduction in the AHI.

Objective: The benefit of bibloc over monobloc appliances in treating obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) has not been evaluated in randomized trials. We hypothesized that these types of appliances would be equally effective. Material and methods: In this multicentre, randomized equivalence trial, patients with OSA received one type of bibloc or one type of monobloc treatment. At baseline, a 1-night polygraphy study was done, and this was repeated after 1 year. The outcome was any change in the apnoea–hypopnoea index (AHI) and the limits of equivalence between the two devices were set at ±5 AHI units. Results: Of 302 patients, 146 were randomly assigned to bibloc and 156 to monobloc appliances. In 88 and 104 patients, respectively, there were significant reductions in the AHI (p < .001) with a mean change of −16.7 (95% CI −19.4 to −14.1) in the bibloc and −11.8 (−14.9 to −8.7) in the monobloc groups. The proportions of responders defined as having an AHI <10 were 68% and 65% for the bibloc and monobloc groups, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events were mild, transient and the dropouts were more frequent in the bibloc group. Conclusions: Both types of treatments positively and significantly reduced respiratory disturbances, but at the 1-year follow-up, they were not significantly different in treating OSA, with a numerically greater reduction of the AHI value with the bibloc appliance. However, the higher proportion of treatment-related adverse events and higher proportion of dropouts among bibloc users should be balanced against the advantage of a greater reduction in the AHI.

Objectives: Patients with otosclerosis more often complain about postoperative taste disturbance than patients with chronic otitis media, which seems paradoxical. We aim to investigate if and potentially why this seems to be the case, since the chorda tympani nerve (CTN) is thought to be severely traumatized less frequently during surgery in the former than in the latter. Study Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Department of Otorhinolaryngology at Hospital of Vastmanland, Vasteras, Sweden. Patients: Sixty-five adults undergoing primary middle ear surgery were included. Thirty-seven were operated on for chronic suppurative otitis media with or without cholesteatoma (CSOM) and 28 for otosclerosis. Interventions: Middle ear surgery due to otosclerosis or CSOM. Subjective and objective taste measurements and quality of life (QoL) questionnaire. Main Outcome Measures: Taste was assessed using electrogustometry (EGM) and the filter paper disc (FPD) method before and up to 1 year after surgery. Questionnaires on taste disturbance, including a visual analogue scale (VAS), and QoL were completed before and up to 1 year after surgery. Results: Subjective taste disturbance anytime during the 1-year follow-up were reported by 62 and 46%, respectively. The difference in EGM 1 week after surgery compared with preoperative EGM was significantly greater among CSOM patients than otosclerosis. One year postoperatively, the difference is non-significant. Conclusion: Surgery for CSOM causes greater initial and more long-lasting taste disturbances as compared with surgery for otosclerosis. One-year postoperative taste normalizes for both CSOM and otosclerosis patients according to VAS and EGM measurements. No real change in QoL was seen 1-year postoperatively., Authors in thesis list of papers: Berling Holm K, Knutsson J, Rosenblad A, von Unge M.

Background: The clinical benefit of bibloc over monobloc appliances in treating obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) has not been evaluated in randomized trials. We hypothesized that the two types of appliances are equally effective in treating OSA. Objective: To compare the efficacy of monobloc versus bibloc appliances in a short-term perspective. Patients and methods: In this multicentre, randomized, blinded, controlled, parallel-group equivalence trial, patients with OSA were randomly assigned to use either a bibloc or a monobloc appliance. One-night respiratory polygraphy without respiratory support was performed at baseline, and participants were re-examined with the appliance in place at short-term follow-up. The primary outcome was the change in the apnoea–hypopnea index (AHI). An independent person prepared a randomization list and sealed envelopes. Evaluating dentist and the biomedical analysts who evaluated the polygraphy were blinded to the choice of therapy. Results: Of 302 patients, 146 were randomly assigned to use the bibloc and 156 the monobloc device; 123 and 139 patients, respectively, were analysed as per protocol. The mean changes in AHI were −13.8 (95% confidence interval −16.1 to −11.5) in the bibloc group and −12.5 (−14.8 to −10.3) in the monobloc group. The difference of −1.3 (−4.5 to 1.9) was significant within the equivalence interval (P = 0.011; the greater of the two P values) and was confirmed by the intention-to-treat analysis (P = 0.001). The adverse events were of mild character and were experienced by similar percentages of patients in both groups (39 and 40 per cent for the bibloc and monobloc group, respectively). Limitations: The study shows short-term results with a median time from commencing treatment to the evaluation visit of 56 days and long-term data on efficacy and harm are needed to be fully conclusive. Conclusion: In a short-term perspective, both appliances were equivalent in terms of their positive effects for treating OSA a

Background: The clinical benefit of bibloc over monobloc appliances in treating obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) has not been evaluated in randomized trials. We hypothesized that the two types of appliances are equally effective in treating OSA. Objective: To compare the efficacy of monobloc versus bibloc appliances in a short-term perspective. Patients and methods: In this multicentre, randomized, blinded, controlled, parallel-group equivalence trial, patients with OSA were randomly assigned to use either a bibloc or a monobloc appliance. One-night respiratory polygraphy without respiratory support was performed at baseline, and participants were re-examined with the appliance in place at short-term follow-up. The primary outcome was the change in the apnoea–hypopnea index (AHI). An independent person prepared a randomization list and sealed envelopes. Evaluating dentist and the biomedical analysts who evaluated the polygraphy were blinded to the choice of therapy. Results: Of 302 patients, 146 were randomly assigned to use the bibloc and 156 the monobloc device; 123 and 139 patients, respectively, were analysed as per protocol. The mean changes in AHI were −13.8 (95% confidence interval −16.1 to −11.5) in the bibloc group and −12.5 (−14.8 to −10.3) in the monobloc group. The difference of −1.3 (−4.5 to 1.9) was significant within the equivalence interval (P = 0.011; the greater of the two P values) and was confirmed by the intention-to-treat analysis (P = 0.001). The adverse events were of mild character and were experienced by similar percentages of patients in both groups (39 and 40 per cent for the bibloc and monobloc group, respectively). Limitations: The study shows short-term results with a median time from commencing treatment to the evaluation visit of 56 days and long-term data on efficacy and harm are needed to be fully conclusive. Conclusion: In a short-term perspective, both appliances were equivalent in terms of their positive effects for treating OSA a

Background: The clinical benefit of bibloc over monobloc appliances in treating obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) has not been evaluated in randomized trials. We hypothesized that the two types of appliances are equally effective in treating OSA. Objective: To compare the efficacy of monobloc versus bibloc appliances in a short-term perspective. Patients and methods: In this multicentre, randomized, blinded, controlled, parallel-group equivalence trial, patients with OSA were randomly assigned to use either a bibloc or a monobloc appliance. One-night respiratory polygraphy without respiratory support was performed at baseline, and participants were re-examined with the appliance in place at short-term follow-up. The primary outcome was the change in the apnoea–hypopnea index (AHI). An independent person prepared a randomization list and sealed envelopes. Evaluating dentist and the biomedical analysts who evaluated the polygraphy were blinded to the choice of therapy. Results: Of 302 patients, 146 were randomly assigned to use the bibloc and 156 the monobloc device; 123 and 139 patients, respectively, were analysed as per protocol. The mean changes in AHI were −13.8 (95% confidence interval −16.1 to −11.5) in the bibloc group and −12.5 (−14.8 to −10.3) in the monobloc group. The difference of −1.3 (−4.5 to 1.9) was significant within the equivalence interval (P = 0.011; the greater of the two P values) and was confirmed by the intention-to-treat analysis (P = 0.001). The adverse events were of mild character and were experienced by similar percentages of patients in both groups (39 and 40 per cent for the bibloc and monobloc group, respectively). Limitations: The study shows short-term results with a median time from commencing treatment to the evaluation visit of 56 days and long-term data on efficacy and harm are needed to be fully conclusive. Conclusion: In a short-term perspective, both appliances were equivalent in terms of their positive effects for treating OSA a

Background: The clinical benefit of bibloc over monobloc appliances in treating obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) has not been evaluated in randomized trials. We hypothesized that the two types of appliances are equally effective in treating OSA. Objective: To compare the efficacy of monobloc versus bibloc appliances in a short-term perspective. Patients and methods: In this multicentre, randomized, blinded, controlled, parallel-group equivalence trial, patients with OSA were randomly assigned to use either a bibloc or a monobloc appliance. One-night respiratory polygraphy without respiratory support was performed at baseline, and participants were re-examined with the appliance in place at short-term follow-up. The primary outcome was the change in the apnoea–hypopnea index (AHI). An independent person prepared a randomization list and sealed envelopes. Evaluating dentist and the biomedical analysts who evaluated the polygraphy were blinded to the choice of therapy. Results: Of 302 patients, 146 were randomly assigned to use the bibloc and 156 the monobloc device; 123 and 139 patients, respectively, were analysed as per protocol. The mean changes in AHI were −13.8 (95% confidence interval −16.1 to −11.5) in the bibloc group and −12.5 (−14.8 to −10.3) in the monobloc group. The difference of −1.3 (−4.5 to 1.9) was significant within the equivalence interval (P = 0.011; the greater of the two P values) and was confirmed by the intention-to-treat analysis (P = 0.001). The adverse events were of mild character and were experienced by similar percentages of patients in both groups (39 and 40 per cent for the bibloc and monobloc group, respectively). Limitations: The study shows short-term results with a median time from commencing treatment to the evaluation visit of 56 days and long-term data on efficacy and harm are needed to be fully conclusive. Conclusion: In a short-term perspective, both appliances were equivalent in terms of their positive effects for treating OSA a

Background: The clinical benefit of bibloc over monobloc appliances in treating obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) has not been evaluated in randomized trials. We hypothesized that the two types of appliances are equally effective in treating OSA. Objective: To compare the efficacy of monobloc versus bibloc appliances in a short-term perspective. Patients and methods: In this multicentre, randomized, blinded, controlled, parallel-group equivalence trial, patients with OSA were randomly assigned to use either a bibloc or a monobloc appliance. One-night respiratory polygraphy without respiratory support was performed at baseline, and participants were re-examined with the appliance in place at short-term follow-up. The primary outcome was the change in the apnoea–hypopnea index (AHI). An independent person prepared a randomization list and sealed envelopes. Evaluating dentist and the biomedical analysts who evaluated the polygraphy were blinded to the choice of therapy. Results: Of 302 patients, 146 were randomly assigned to use the bibloc and 156 the monobloc device; 123 and 139 patients, respectively, were analysed as per protocol. The mean changes in AHI were −13.8 (95% confidence interval −16.1 to −11.5) in the bibloc group and −12.5 (−14.8 to −10.3) in the monobloc group. The difference of −1.3 (−4.5 to 1.9) was significant within the equivalence interval (P = 0.011; the greater of the two P values) and was confirmed by the intention-to-treat analysis (P = 0.001). The adverse events were of mild character and were experienced by similar percentages of patients in both groups (39 and 40 per cent for the bibloc and monobloc group, respectively). Limitations: The study shows short-term results with a median time from commencing treatment to the evaluation visit of 56 days and long-term data on efficacy and harm are needed to be fully conclusive. Conclusion: In a short-term perspective, both appliances were equivalent in terms of their positive effects for treating OSA a