Background: Evaluation and interpretation of the literature on obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) allows for consolidation and determination of the key factors important for clinical management of the adult OSA patient. Toward this goal, an international collaborative of multidisciplinary experts in sleep apnea evaluation and treatment have produced the International Consensus statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (ICS:OSA). Methods: Using previously defined methodology, focal topics in OSA were assigned as literature review (LR), evidence-based review (EBR), or evidencebased review with recommendations (EBR-R) formats. Each topic incorporated the available and relevant evidence which was summarized and graded on study quality. Each topic and section underwent iterative review and the ICS:OSA was created and reviewed by all authors for consensus. Results: The ICS:OSA addresses OSA syndrome definitions, pathophysiology, epidemiology, risk factors for disease, screening methods, diagnostic testing types, multiple treatment modalities, and effects of OSA treatment on multiple OSA-associated comorbidities. Specific focus on outcomes with positive airway pressure (PAP) and surgical treatments were evaluated. Conclusion:This review of the literature consolidates the available knowledge and identifies the limitations of the current evidence on OSA. This effort aims to create a resource for OSA evidence-based practice and identify future research needs. Knowledge gaps and research opportunities include improving the metrics of OSA disease, determining the optimal OSA screening paradigms, developing strategies for PAP adherence and longitudinal care, enhancing selection of PAP alternatives and surgery, understanding health risk outcomes, and translating evidence into individualized approaches to therapy.

Background Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) can be caused by neoplasms involving the upper aerodigestive tract. Currently, many of these patients have this diagnosis missed, as most adults diagnosed with OSA do not undergo adequate head and neck examination including flexible nasendoscopy. We performed a review of the literature to shed light on this phenomenon and outline the pathologies and issues surrounding this sub‐population of patients diagnosed with OSA. Methods A scoping review of the literature was conducted on head and neck neoplasms presenting with OSA. Data were extracted on demographics, clinical presentation, histopathology, treatment and patient outcomes. Results Sixty‐seven articles were included, describing 79 patients. Mean age was 45.8 years, and 77.2% were male. Symptoms of OSA were present for an average of 29.2 months before a diagnosis of causative neoplasm was made. Forty‐two different benign and malignant histopathological entities were reported. At diagnosis, the causative pathology of 100% of patients was visible on head and neck examination including flexible nasendoscopy, while only 53.2% were visible on trans‐oral examination. One‐third of patients had commenced inappropriate treatment for OSA, including three who had undergone sleep surgical procedures. The majority of patients were treated with surgery alone (72.2%). Conclusion Although rare, neoplasms of the upper aerodigestive tract should be considered as a cause of OSA, especially in patients experiencing other symptoms in addition to the typical symptoms of OSA. They should particularly be considered in patients with comparatively lower body mass index or those with worsening OSA without an apparent cause identified.

No abstract

Introduction In Australia, ASOHNS delivers no formal curriculum for training of OHNS, or levels of competency required, to assess and treat complex OSA patients. Australian OHNS trainee confidence, knowledge and exposure to complex multi-level OSA surgery is lacking. Lack of exposure to sufficient complex OSA surgery case load has been identified as a major weakness in training within a recently published international survey. This study was a randomized clinical trial evaluating the effect of Australian OHNS trainee exposure to education materials compared with no exposure, on Sleep Surgery specific examination performance (multiple choice and short written answer). Methods 70 accredited and 45 unaccredited OHNS trainees were invited to participate in this trial. Participants were randomly assigned to Sleep Surgery educational material exposure or no exposure to those materials. Those randomized to the exposure group were provided educational material and were given 2 weeks exposure time prior to the exam. Each participant then complete an online examin, consisting of 40 multiple choice questions and 1 short answer question (marked by a field expert). Differences between exposure and control group means were tested using independent t-tests. Results 24 trainees were allocated to exposure and 22 to control. 33 participants attempted the examination. The were no significant differences between groups in the multiple choice (mean difference 1.3 ± 1.6 [3.3%], p=0.41) or written exam test scores (mean difference 1.8 ± 1.2 [9.0%], p=0.14). Accredited trainees performed better in the written exam (mean difference 2.6 ± 1.1 [13.0%], p=0.03). The mean test score in a separate exploratory group of 2 sleep fellowship trained OHNS was considerably higher in both exams. Conclusion This study suggests that exposure to formal education material may improve understanding of sleep surgery. Accredited trainees performed better than unaccredited trainees but the difference was small. Poor test performance in both groups may indicate further formal sleep surgery teaching is required in the ASOHNS training curriculum. Further research is required to identify the best ways possible to educate OHNS trainees in the complex and nuanced decision making required for OSA patients. Support (if any) Illawarra Health and Medical Research Institute Grant 2019.