Ishman, Stacey L

Obstructive sleep disordered breathing (oSDB), including obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), frequently coexists with cleft lip and palate, velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI), and other craniofacial conditions. Moreover, oSDB is often a key factor in decisions for primary or revision cleft palate or velpharyngeal surgery. Due to the frequency with which cleft and craniofacial team members care for patients with oSDB, this article provides a primer for OSA evaluation and management for team members. oSDB can have a significant impact on quality of life, health outcomes, surgical planning, and global development for all children, especially those with cleft and craniofacial conditions. In this review, oSDB screening and testing methods are discussed, including interpretation of OSA testing. Considerations for specific craniofacial populations are included, such as those with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome and Pierre-Robin sequence. The impact of VPI surgery on OSA is discussed. Finally, approaches to OSA management are reviewed, with attention to how standard management approaches may shift in children with cleft and craniofacial conditions. As awareness of oSDB in children has increased, including increased access to diagnostic testing, studies have shown certain patient populations are more likely to have OSA and would benefit from screening. Children with craniofacial conditions, including cleft palate and velopharyngeal insufficiency, have altered risk profiles which impact management considerations for OSA. This article provides an introduction to key concepts in oSDB screening, diagnositics, and management, which can be valuable for any professional assisting in the care of children with a cleft or craniofacial condition.

ABSTRACT 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 evidence‐based 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.

Objectives/HypothesisCreate a competency‐based assessment tool for pediatric tracheotomy.Study DesignBlinded, modified, Delphi consensus process.MethodsUsing the REDCap database, a list of 31 potential items was circulated to 65 expert surgeons who perform pediatric tracheotomy. In the first round, items were rated as “keep” or “remove,” and comments were incorporated. In the second round, experts were asked to rate the importance of each item on a seven‐point Likert scale. Consensus criteria were determined a priori with a goal of 7 to 25 final items.ResultsThe first round achieved a response rate of 39/65 (60.0%), and returned questionnaires were 99.5% complete. All items were rated as “keep,” and 137 comments were incorporated. In the second round, 30 task‐specific and seven previously validated global rating items were distributed, and the response rate was 44/65 (67.7%), with returned questionnaires being 99.3% complete. Of the Task‐Specific Items, 13 reached consensus, 10 were near consensus, and 7 did not achieve consensus. For the 7 previously validated global rating items, 5 reached consensus and two were near consensus.ConclusionsIt is feasible to reach consensus on the important steps involved in pediatric tracheotomy using a modified Delphi consensus process. These items can now be considered to create a competency‐based assessment tool for pediatric tracheotomy. Such a tool will hopefully allow trainees to focus on the important aspects of this procedure and help teaching programs standardize how they evaluate trainees during this procedure.Level of Evidence5 Laryngoscope, 130:2700–2707, 2020