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.

Chronic stimulation of the hypoglossus nerve may provide a new treatment modality for obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). In previous studies we observed large differences in response to stimulation of the genioglossus (GG). We hypothesised that both individual patient characteristics and the area of the GG stimulated are responsible for these differences.In the present study, we compared the response to GG electrical stimulation at the anterior area (GGa-ES), which activates the whole GG and the posterior area (GGp-ES), which activates preferentially the longitudinal fibres. Studies were performed in 14 propofol-sedated OSA patients. The parameters evaluated included cephalometry, pressure-flow relationship and pharyngeal shape and compliance assessed by pharyngoscopy.Compared with GGa-ES, GGp-ES resulted in significantly larger decreases in the critical value of end-expiratory pressure (Pcrit) (from 3.8¡2.2 to 2.9¡3.3 and -2.0¡3.9 cmH 2 O, respectively (p,0.001)). Both tongue size and velopharyngeal shape (anteroposterior to lateral ratio) correlated significantly with the decrease in Pcrit during respectively; p,0.05). In the patients with the larger tongue size (n57), the decrease in Pcrit reached 8.0¡2.2 cmH 2 O during GGp-ES.We conclude that directing stimulation to longitudinal fibres of the GG improves the flowmechanical effect. In addition, patients with large tongues and narrow pharynx tend to respond better to GGp-ES.

Oliven A. Interacting effects of genioglossus stimulation and mandibular advancement in sleep apnea. J Appl Physiol 106: 1668-1673, 2009. First published February 19, 2009 doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.91501.2008 and stimulation of the genioglossus (GG) have been shown to improve upper airway patency, but neither one achieves the effect of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment. In the present study we assessed the combined effect of MA and GG stimulation on the relaxed pharynx in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). We evaluated responses of upper airway pressure-flow relationships and endoscopically determined pharyngeal cross-sectional area to MA and electrical stimulation of the GG in 14 propofol-anesthetized OSA patients. Measurements were undertaken at multiple levels of CPAP, enabling calculation of the critical closing pressure (Pcrit), upstream resistance (Rus), and pharyngeal compliance. GG stimulation, MA, and the combination of both shifted the pressure:flow relationships toward higher flow levels, resulting in progressively lower Pcrit (from baseline of 2.9 Ϯ 2.2 to 0.9 Ϯ 2.5, Ϫ1.4 Ϯ 2.9, and Ϫ4.2 Ϯ 3.3 cmH2O, respectively), without significant change in Rus. ⌬Pcrit during GG stimulation was significantly larger during MA than under baseline conditions (Ϫ2.8 Ϯ 1.4 vs. Ϫ2.0 Ϯ 1.4 cmH 2O, P ϭ 0.011). Combining the effect of GG stimulation with MA lowered Pcrit below 0 in all patients and restored pharyngeal patency to a level that enabled flow above the hypopnea level in 10/14 of the patients. Velopharyngeal compliance was not affected by either manipulation. We conclude that the combined effect of MA and GG stimulation is additive and may act in synergy, preventing substantial flow limitation of the relaxed pharynx in most OSA patients.

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.