Skip to main content
. 2023 Mar 17;27(5):2013–2025. doi: 10.1007/s00784-023-04945-z

Table 4.

Upper airway dimensions without and with MAD in situ of the MAD-H group and the MAD-S group

MAD-H group (n = 16) MAD-S group (n = 15) Baseline MAD-H vs MAD-S Within-subjects effect (Baseline vs follow-up in the total group) Interaction effect a (MAD-H vs MAD-S in treatment effect)
Baseline follow-up Baseline follow-up P F P F P
Primary outcome
  CSAmin (mm2) 54.8 ± 36.9 75.6 ± 50.4 58.5 ± 29.3 87.8 ± 59.1 0.50 9.13 0.01* 0.30 0.59
Secondary outcomes
  A-P (mm) 4.6 ± 2.1 5.0 ± 2.4 4.4 ± 1.7 5.3 ± 1.9 0.77 3.37 0.08 0.35 0.56
  La (mm) 11.4 ± 4.7 15.4 ± 5.1 13.1 ± 4.6 16.2 ± 5.8 0.32 16.74  < 0.01* 0.12 0.74
  L (mm) 67.0 ± 9.6 65.6 ± 9.9 65.9 ± 8.0 64.4 ± 8.8 0.59 4.30 0.05 0.00 0.99
  V (cm3) 10.9 ± 3.4 12.2 ± 5.5 11.4 ± 5.4 12.8 ± 5.7 0.75 3.42 0.08 0.10 0.75

Data are shown as means ± standard deviations (SD); a: all outcome variables were controlled for age; *: significant difference after Bonferroni-Holm correction

CSAmin minimum cross-sectional area of the upper airway; A-P anterior–posterior dimension of the CSAmin; La lateral dimension of the CSAmin; L length of the upper airway; V upper airway volume