Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 7, 2026
08:09
Vessel-sparing Excision and Primary Anastomosis
Published on: January 7, 2019
11.8K
Barbed Reposition Pharyngoplasty versus Expansion Sphincter Pharyngoplasty: A Meta-Analysis
Chairat Neruntarat1, Kitsarawut Khuancharee2, Petcharat Saengthong3
1Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok, Thailand.
The Laryngoscope
|December 28, 2020
Summary
Barbed reposition pharyngoplasty (BRP) and expansion sphincter pharyngoplasty (ESP) show comparable outcomes for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). BRP offers a shorter surgical time, but further trials are needed to confirm long-term efficacy.
Area of Science:
- Otolaryngology
- Sleep Medicine
- Surgical Innovation
Background:
- Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a common disorder.
- Surgical interventions aim to improve airway patency.
- Pharyngoplasty techniques like BRP and ESP are used for palatal collapse.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the efficacy and outcomes of barbed reposition pharyngoplasty (BRP) and expansion sphincter pharyngoplasty (ESP) in treating obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).
Main Methods:
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant studies up to August 2020.
- Included four studies with a total of 208 participants.
- Compared apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) reduction, success rates, and other clinical outcomes.
Main Results:
- Both BRP and ESP demonstrated significant reductions in AHI and comparable success rates.
- No significant differences were observed in postoperative AHI, sleepiness, pain, or hospital stay.
- Barbed reposition pharyngoplasty (BRP) showed a significantly shorter operative time and lower analgesic requirement compared to expansion sphincter pharyngoplasty (ESP).
Conclusions:
- Barbed reposition pharyngoplasty (BRP) and expansion sphincter pharyngoplasty (ESP) provide comparable improvements for OSA patients with palatal collapse.
- BRP is advantageous due to its shorter surgical duration.
- Further multicenter randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are necessary to definitively establish the efficacy of both procedures.
