4.5 Article

Mechanical parameters determining pharyngeal collapsibility in patients with sleep apnea

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 109, 期 4, 页码 1037-1044

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00019.2010

关键词

pharyngeal compliance

资金

  1. Binational USA-Israel Science Foundation [2000234]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The relative impact of mechanical factors on pharyngeal patency in patients with obstructive sleep apnea is poorly understood. The present study was designed to evaluate parameters of the tube law on pharyngeal pressure-flow relationships and collapsibility in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. We developed a mathematical model that considered the collapsible segment of the pharynx to represent an orifice of varying diameter. The model enabled us to assess the effects of pharyngeal compliance (C), neutral cross-sectional area (A(o)), external peripharyngeal pressure (P(ex)), and the resistance proximal to the site of collapse on flow mechanics and pharyngeal collapsibility [critical pressure (P(crit))]. All parameters were measured in 15 patients with obstructive sleep apnea under propofol anesthesia, both at rest and during mandibular advancement and electrical stimulation of the genioglossus. The data was used both to confirm the validity of the model and to compare expected and actual relationships between the tube-law parameters and the pharyngeal pressure-flow relationship and collapsibility. We found a close correlation between predicted and measured P(crit) (R = 0.98), including changes observed during pharyngeal manipulations. C and A(o) were closely and directly interrelated (R = 0.93) and did not correlate with P(crit). A significant correlation was found between P(ex) and P(crit) (R = 0.77; P < 0.01). We conclude that the pharynx of patients with obstructive sleep apnea can be modeled as an orifice with varying diameter. Pharyngeal compliance and A(o) are closely interrelated. Pharyngeal collapsibility depends primarily on the surrounding pressure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据