4.5 Article

Computed tomographic evaluation of the role of craniofacial and upper airway morphology in obstructive sleep apnea in Chinese

期刊

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
卷 98, 期 4, 页码 301-307

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2003.10.009

关键词

computed tomography; cephalometry; upper airway; obstructive sleep apnea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To evaluate the relationship between cephalometric parameters, upper airway morphological factors and obstructive steep apnea (OSA) in Chinese subjects. Design: Polysomnogram (PSG) were performed and scored using standard criteria. Supine lateral cephalometric parameters and pharyngeal cross-sectional areas at the level of velopharynx (VA) and hypopharynx (HA) were measured from computed tomographic scans. The roles of these parameters and other anthropometric/demographic characteristics in OSA (apnea hypopnea index, AHI greater than or equal to 5) and their relationship with severity of OSA were explored by multiple logistic and multinominal regression analysis. Results: Ninety-two subjects, ranging from normal (n = 36), mild/moderate OSA (n = 34) to severe OSA (n = 22), were evaluated. Compared with normal subjects, OSA subjects were heavier (body mass index 27 vs. 24 kg/m(2)) and older (47 vs. 42 years of age); had smaller VA size and VA to HA ratio, lower positioned hyoid bone, longer and thicker soft palate, and more retropositioned mandible relative to maxilla. After controlling for body mass index and age, subjects with severe OSA (AHI > 30) had more retropositioned mandible relative to maxilla (odds ratio, OR 1.31, P = 0.044) and longer soft palate (OR 1.16, P = 0.01), while those with mild/moderate OSA had larger VA to HA ratio (OR 0.17, P = 0.018). Conclusions: Craniofacial factors and upper airway morphology contributed to severity of OSA in Chinese subjects. Having controlled for obesity, more retropositioned mandible was associated with more severe OSA. (C) 2003 Elsevier 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

4.5
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