4.5 Article

Sleep-disordered breathing, pharyngeal size and soft tissue anatomy in children

Journal

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 95, Issue 5, Pages 2030-2038

Publisher

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00293.2003

Keywords

apnea; hypopnea; magnetic resonance imaging; upper airway; obstructive apnea hypopnea index

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL-51056, R01 HL062373, HL-62373] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We tested the hypothesis that pharyngeal geometry and soft tissue dimensions correlate with the severity of sleep-disordered breathing. Magnetic resonance images of the pharynx were obtained in 18 awake children, 7 - 12 yr of age, with obstructive apnea-hypopnea index (OAHI) values ranging from 1.81 to 24.2 events/h. Subjects were divided into low-OAHI (n = 9) and high-OAHI (n = 9) groups [2.8 +/- 0.7 and 13.5 +/- 4.9 (SD) P < 0.001]. The OAHI correlated positively with the size of the tonsils (r(2) = 0.42, P = 0.024) and soft palate (r(2) = 0.33, P = 0.049) and inversely with the volume of the oropharyx (r(2) = 0.42, P = 0.038). The narrowest point in the pharyngeal airway was smaller in the high-compared with the low-OAHI group (4.4 +/- 1.2 vs. 6.0 +/- 1.3 mm; P = 0.024), and this point was in the retropalatal airway in all but two subjects. The airway cross-sectional area (CSA)-airway length relation showed that the high-OAHI group had a narrower retropapatal airway than the low-OAHI group, particularly in the retropalatal region where the soft palate, adenoids, and tonsils overlap ( P = 0.001). The retropalatal air space, which we defined as the ratio of the retropalatal airway CSA to the CSA of the soft palate, correlated inversely with the OAHI (r(2) = 0.49, P = 0.001). We conclude that 7- to 12-yr-old children with a narrow retropalatal air space have significantly more apneas and hypopneas during sleep compared with children with relatively unobstructed retropalatal airways.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available