Evaluation of Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Prone Versus Nonprone Body Positioning With Polysomnography in Infants With Robin Sequence

Objective: Management of obstructive sleep apnea in infants with Robin sequence (RS) includes prone positioning during sleep, which conflicts with safe infant sleep data. We examined changes in polysomnography (PSG) parameters for prone versus nonprone body positions in these infants. Design: Pre–po...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal 2020-02, Vol.57 (2), p.141-147
Main Authors: Hong, Hanna, Wee, Choo Phei, Haynes, Karla, Urata, Mark, Hammoudeh, Jeffrey, Ward, Sally L. Davidson
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Babies
Dentistry
Posture
Sleep apnea
Studies
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objective: Management of obstructive sleep apnea in infants with Robin sequence (RS) includes prone positioning during sleep, which conflicts with safe infant sleep data. We examined changes in polysomnography (PSG) parameters for prone versus nonprone body positions in these infants. Design: Pre–post interventional, nonblinded study. Participants: Infants with RS referred for PSG were recruited from craniofacial clinic and inpatient units at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, a tertiary pediatric center. Fourteen infants were recruited, and 12 studies were completed on both body positions; 11 studies were used in the analysis. Interventions: The PSG was divided into nonprone and prone sleep, moving from their usual sleep position to the other position midway in the study. Main Outcome Measures: Data was collected in each position for obstructive apnea–hypopnea index (oAHI), central apnea index (CAI), sleep efficiency (SE), and arousal index (AI). Signed rank test was used to evaluate the change in body position. Results: All infants were term except 1, age 7 to 218 days (mean: 55 days; standard deviation: 58 days), and 8 (57%) of 14 were female. From nonprone to prone sleep position, the median oAHI (16.0-14.0), CAI (2.9-1.0), and AI (28.0-19.9) decreased (P = .065); SE increased (67.4-85.2; P = .227). Conclusions: Prone positioning may benefit some infants with RS. However, even those with significant improvement in obstructive sleep apnea did not completely resolve their obstruction. The decision to use prone positioning as a therapy should be objectively evaluated in individual infants.
ISSN:1055-6656
1545-1569
DOI:10.1177/1055665619867228