The purpose of the present study was to quantify the mechanical effect of genioglossus stimulation on flow mechanics and pharyngeal cross-sectional area in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea, and to identify variables that determine the magnitude of the respiratory effect of tongue protrusion.The pressure/flow and pressure/cross-sectional area relationships of the velo-and oropharynx were assessed in spontaneously breathing propofol-anaesthetised subjects before and during genioglossus stimulation.Genioglossus contraction decreased the critical pressure significantly from 1.2¡3.3 to -0.7¡3.8 cmH 2 O, with individual decreases ranging -0.6-5.9 cmH 2 O. Pharyngeal compliance was not affected by genioglossus contraction. The pharyngeal response to genioglossus stimulation was related to the magnitude of advancement of the posterior side of the tongue, but not to the severity of sleep apnoea, critical pressure, compliance or the shape and other characteristics of the velopharynx.Genioglossus contraction enlarges both the velo-and the oropharynx and lowers the critical pressure without affecting pharyngeal stiffness. The response to genioglossus stimulation depends upon the magnitude of tongue protrusion achieved rather than on inherent characteristics of the patient and their airway.
The present study evaluated the effect of coactivation of tongue protrusors and retractors on pharyngeal patency in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. The effect of genioglossus (GG), hyoglossus (HG), and coactivation of both on nasal pressure (Pn):flow relationships was evaluated in a sleep study (SlS, n = 7) and during a propofol anesthesia study (AnS, n = 7). GG was stimulated with sublingual surface electrodes in SlS and with intramuscular electrodes in AnS, while HG was stimulated with surface electrodes in both groups. In the AnS, the cross-sectional area (CSA):Pn relationships was measured with a pharyngoscope to estimate velopharyngeal compliance . In the SlS, surface stimulation of GG had no effect on the critical pressure (Pcrit), HG increased Pcrit from 2.8 +/- 1.7 to 3.7 +/- 1.6 cmH(2)O, but coactivation lowered Pcrit to 0.2 +/- 1.9 cmH(2)O (P < 0.01 for both). In the AnS, intramuscular stimulation of GG lowered Pcrit from 2.6 +/- 1.3 to 1.0 +/- 2.8 cmH(2)O, HG increased Pcrit to 6.2 +/- 2.5 cmH(2)O (P < 0.01), and coactivation had a similar effect to that of GG (Pcrit = 1.2 +/- 2.4 cmH(2)O, P < 0.05). None of the interventions affected significantly velopharyngeal compliance. We conclude that the beneficial effect of coactivation depends on the pattern of GG fiber recruitment: although surface stimulation of GG failed to protrude the tongue, it prevented the occlusive effect of the retractor, thereby improving pharyngeal patency during coactivation. Stimulation of deeper GG fibers with intramuscular electrodes enlarged the pharynx, and coactivation had no additive effect.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.