4.2 Article

Histological analysis of palatopharyngeal muscle from children with snoring and obstructive sleep apnea syndrome

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2006.10.019

关键词

sleep disorders; palatopharyngeal muscle; muscle histology; soft palate; snoring

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) is an upper airway obstruction that occurs during the sleep. One of the suggested mechanisms involved in this process is a neuromuscular abnormality of the palatal muscles. Whether children with OSAS develop into OSAS adults, or children and adult OSAS are two distinct disorders occurring at different ages are questions to be answered. Here, we made the histological analysis of palatophryngeat muscle in 34 oral-breathing children of both genders, aged 5-12 years old, with hypertrophic tonsils and adenoids. According to the polysomnographic study the participants were divided into children without sleeping disorders (group I) and children with primary snoring (group II) or apnea (group III). The main histological findings were fiber size variability in 70% cases from groups II and III and in 71% from group I; perimysial connective tissue infiltration in 48% children from groups II and III and in 71% from group I; intracytoplasmatic mitochondrial proliferation in 63% cases from groups II and III and in 57% cases from group I. Muscle necrosis was only observed in one case, in association with subglandular inflammation. Others findings observed in all groups included fibers with internal architecture alteration, such as moth-eaten and lobulated fibers, type 2 fiber predominance, and small areas of fiber type grouping. The presence of similar histological findings in the palatopharyngeal muscle in children with primary snoring or apnea but also in children without sleeping disorders indicate that such changes could be a normal histological feature of this muscle rather than a neurogenic or myopathic pathology. (C) 2006 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.2
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