HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 106/5/1668    most recent 91501.2008v1 Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Oliven, R. Articles by Oliven, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Oliven, R. Articles by Oliven, A.

Interacting effects of genioglossus stimulation and mandibular advancement in sleep apnea

¹Bnai Zion Medical Center, Technion, Haifa, Israel; and ²the Johns Hopkins Sleep Disorders Center, Baltimore, Maryland

Submitted 8 November 2008 ; accepted in final form 11 February 2009

Both mandibular advancement (MA) 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 ± 2.2 to 0.9 ± 2.5, –1.4 ± 2.9, and –4.2 ± 3.3 cmH₂O, respectively), without significant change in Rus. Pcrit during GG stimulation was significantly larger during MA than under baseline conditions (–2.8 ± 1.4 vs. –2.0 ± 1.4 cmH₂O, P = 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.

obstructive sleep apnea; critical closing pressure; nasal pressure