Kate Sutherland1,2, Andrew S L Chan3, Peter A Cistulli3. 1. Centre for Sleep Health and Research, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, and Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Acute Services Building 8A Reserve Road, St Leonards, NSW, 2065, Sydney, Australia. Kate.sutherland@sydney.edu.au. 2. Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Kate.sutherland@sydney.edu.au. 3. Centre for Sleep Health and Research, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, and Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Acute Services Building 8A Reserve Road, St Leonards, NSW, 2065, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Mandibular advancement splints (MAS) are an effective treatment for obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). However, MAS are not equally efficacious across all patients and the reasons are not well understood. Craniofacial and upper airway structure individually influence MAS response. We aimed to assess anatomical balance, defined as the ratio of upper airway soft tissue (ST) volume to maxillomandibular enclosure volume, between MAS treatment responders and non-responders. METHODS: OSA patients (apnoea-hypopnea index (AHI) >10 h(-1)) were recruited for MAS treatment. Magnetic resonance imaging of the upper airway was performed during wakefulness without and with MAS in situ. Images were processed for volumetric analysis of upper airway soft tissues (tongue, soft palate, paraphayrngeal fat pads and lateral pharyngeal walls) and three-dimensional cephalometry to acquire intra-mandibular space area (IMA) and total maxillomandibular (Mm) volume. Anatomical balance ratios were compared between MAS treatment responders (AHI <10 h(-1) + 50 % reduction) and non-responders. RESULTS: Image analysis was completed in 69 patients (68 % male, age 50.5 ± 10.1 years, BMI 29.6 ± 5.0 kgm(2), AHI 27.0 ± 14.7 h(-1)) including 36 responders. Soft tissue volumes did not differ between MAS responders and non-responders. Non-responders had increased ST/IMA compared to responders (4.9 ± 0.6 vs. 4.6 ± 0.6, p = 0.031). In multivariate logistic regression with AHI and BMI, ST/IMA was the only predictive variable (p = 0.036, ROC AUC 0.7). However, changes in ST/Mm did not directly relate to treatment response. CONCLUSIONS: Anatomical imbalance assessed by intra-mandibular space area was associated with poor MAS treatment response. However, changes in anatomical balance with mandibular advancement did not reflect treatment outcome as static imaging may not adequately capture improvements in upper airway function.
PURPOSE: Mandibular advancement splints (MAS) are an effective treatment for obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). However, MAS are not equally efficacious across all patients and the reasons are not well understood. Craniofacial and upper airway structure individually influence MAS response. We aimed to assess anatomical balance, defined as the ratio of upper airway soft tissue (ST) volume to maxillomandibular enclosure volume, between MAS treatment responders and non-responders. METHODS: OSA patients (apnoea-hypopnea index (AHI) >10 h(-1)) were recruited for MAS treatment. Magnetic resonance imaging of the upper airway was performed during wakefulness without and with MAS in situ. Images were processed for volumetric analysis of upper airway soft tissues (tongue, soft palate, paraphayrngeal fat pads and lateral pharyngeal walls) and three-dimensional cephalometry to acquire intra-mandibular space area (IMA) and total maxillomandibular (Mm) volume. Anatomical balance ratios were compared between MAS treatment responders (AHI <10 h(-1) + 50 % reduction) and non-responders. RESULTS: Image analysis was completed in 69 patients (68 % male, age 50.5 ± 10.1 years, BMI 29.6 ± 5.0 kgm(2), AHI 27.0 ± 14.7 h(-1)) including 36 responders. Soft tissue volumes did not differ between MAS responders and non-responders. Non-responders had increased ST/IMA compared to responders (4.9 ± 0.6 vs. 4.6 ± 0.6, p = 0.031). In multivariate logistic regression with AHI and BMI, ST/IMA was the only predictive variable (p = 0.036, ROC AUC 0.7). However, changes in ST/Mm did not directly relate to treatment response. CONCLUSIONS: Anatomical imbalance assessed by intra-mandibular space area was associated with poor MAS treatment response. However, changes in anatomical balance with mandibular advancement did not reflect treatment outcome as static imaging may not adequately capture improvements in upper airway function.
Authors: Kate Sutherland; Hisashi Takaya; Jin Qian; Peter Petocz; Andrew T Ng; Peter A Cistulli Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2015-08-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: L Chi; F-L Comyn; N Mitra; M P Reilly; F Wan; G Maislin; L Chmiewski; M D Thorne-FitzGerald; U N Victor; A I Pack; R J Schwab Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2011-01-13 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Craig L Phillips; Ronald R Grunstein; M Ali Darendeliler; Anastasia S Mihailidou; Vasantha K Srinivasan; Brendon J Yee; Guy B Marks; Peter A Cistulli Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2013-04-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Whitney Mostafiz; Oyku Dalci; Kate Sutherland; Atul Malhotra; Vasanth Srinivasan; M Ali Darendeliler; Peter A Cistulli Journal: Chest Date: 2011-02-03 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Andrew J Pitsis; M Ali Darendeliler; Helen Gotsopoulos; Peter Petocz; Peter A Cistulli Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2002-09-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Pien Fenneke Nicole Bosschieter; Julia A M Uniken Venema; Patty E Vonk; Madeline J L Ravesloot; Joost W Vanhommerig; A Hoekema; Joanneke M Plooij; F Lobbezoo; Nico de Vries Journal: Sleep Breath Date: 2022-08-09 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Kate Sutherland; Aimee B Lowth; Nick Antic; A Simon Carney; Peter G Catcheside; Ching Li Chai-Coetzer; Michael Chia; John-Charles Hodge; Andrew Jones; Billingsley Kaambwa; Richard Lewis; Stuart MacKay; R Doug McEvoy; Eng H Ooi; Alison J Pinczel; Nigel McArdle; Guy Rees; Bhajan Singh; Nicholas Stow; Edward M Weaver; Richard J Woodman; Charmaine M Woods; Aeneas Yeo; Peter A Cistulli Journal: Sleep Date: 2021-12-10 Impact factor: 6.313
Authors: Nasser D Alqahtani; Mohamed I Algowaifly; Fahad A Almehizia; Zeyad A Alraddadi; Fares S Al-Sehaibany; Naif A Almosa; Sahar F Albarakati; Ahmed S Bahammam Journal: Saudi Med J Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 1.484