Tracy Cheng1, David Carpenter1, Seth Cohen1, David Witsell1, Dennis O Frank-Ito1,2,3,4. 1. Division of Head and Neck Surgery and Communication Sciences, the Division of Head and Neck Surgery and Communication Sciences, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, U.S.A. 2. Duke University Medical Center, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, U.S.A. 3. Computational Biology and Bioinformatics PhD Program, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, U.S.A. 4. Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, U.S.A.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Very little is known about the impact of laryngotracheal stenosis (LTS) on inspiratory airflow and resistance, especially in air hunger states. This study investigates the effect of LTS on airway resistance and volumetric flow across three different inspiratory pressures. METHODS: Head-and-neck computed tomography scans of 11 subjects from 2010 to 2016 were collected. Three-dimensional reconstructions of the upper airway from the nostrils to carina, including the oral cavity, were created for one subject with a normal airway and for 10 patients with LTS. Airflow simulations were conducted using computational fluid dynamics modeling at three different inspiratory pressures (10, 25, 40 pascals [Pa]) for all subjects under two scenarios: 1) inspiration through nostrils only (MC), and 2) through both nostrils and mouth (MO). RESULTS: Volumetric flows in the normal subject at the three inspiratory pressures were considerably higher (MC: 11.8-26.1 L/min; MO: 17.2-36.9 L/min) compared to those in LTS (MC: 2.86-6.75 L/min; MO: 4.11-9.00 L/min). Airway resistances in the normal subject were 0.051 to 0.092 pascal seconds per milliliter (Pa.s)/mL (MC) and 0.035-0.065 Pa.s/mL (MO), which were approximately tenfold lower than those of subjects with LTS: 0.39 to 0.89 Pa.s/mL (MC) and 0.45 to 0.84 Pa.s/mL (MO). Furthermore, subjects with glottic stenosis had the greatest resistance, whereas subjects with subglottic stenosis had the greatest variability in resistance. Subjects with tracheal stenosis had the lowest resistance. CONCLUSION: This pilot study demonstrates that LTS increases resistance and decreases airflow. Mouth breathing significantly improved airflow and resistance but cannot completely compensate for the effects of stenosis. Furthermore, location of stenosis appears to modulate the effect of the stenosis on resistance differentially. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA. Laryngoscope, 128:E141-E149, 2018.
OBJECTIVE: Very little is known about the impact of laryngotracheal stenosis (LTS) on inspiratory airflow and resistance, especially in air hunger states. This study investigates the effect of LTS on airway resistance and volumetric flow across three different inspiratory pressures. METHODS: Head-and-neck computed tomography scans of 11 subjects from 2010 to 2016 were collected. Three-dimensional reconstructions of the upper airway from the nostrils to carina, including the oral cavity, were created for one subject with a normal airway and for 10 patients with LTS. Airflow simulations were conducted using computational fluid dynamics modeling at three different inspiratory pressures (10, 25, 40 pascals [Pa]) for all subjects under two scenarios: 1) inspiration through nostrils only (MC), and 2) through both nostrils and mouth (MO). RESULTS: Volumetric flows in the normal subject at the three inspiratory pressures were considerably higher (MC: 11.8-26.1 L/min; MO: 17.2-36.9 L/min) compared to those in LTS (MC: 2.86-6.75 L/min; MO: 4.11-9.00 L/min). Airway resistances in the normal subject were 0.051 to 0.092 pascal seconds per milliliter (Pa.s)/mL (MC) and 0.035-0.065 Pa.s/mL (MO), which were approximately tenfold lower than those of subjects with LTS: 0.39 to 0.89 Pa.s/mL (MC) and 0.45 to 0.84 Pa.s/mL (MO). Furthermore, subjects with glottic stenosis had the greatest resistance, whereas subjects with subglottic stenosis had the greatest variability in resistance. Subjects with tracheal stenosis had the lowest resistance. CONCLUSION: This pilot study demonstrates that LTS increases resistance and decreases airflow. Mouth breathing significantly improved airflow and resistance but cannot completely compensate for the effects of stenosis. Furthermore, location of stenosis appears to modulate the effect of the stenosis on resistance differentially. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA. Laryngoscope, 128:E141-E149, 2018.
Authors: S A Reza Nouraei; Claire Winterborn; S Mahmoud Nouraei; Dino A Giussani; Kevin Murphy; David J Howard; Guri S Sandhu Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Shekhar K Gadkaree; Vinciya Pandian; Simon Best; Kevin M Motz; Clint Allen; Young Kim; Lee Akst; Alexander T Hillel Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2016-10-26 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Chamindu C Gunatilaka; Andreas Schuh; Nara S Higano; Jason C Woods; Alister J Bates Journal: Comput Biol Med Date: 2020-11-01 Impact factor: 4.589
Authors: Rose T Tillis; Reanna Shah; Hannah L Martin; Alexander C Allori; Jeffrey R Marcus; Dennis O Frank-Ito Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Dennis O Frank-Ito; David J Carpenter; Tracy Cheng; Yash J Avashia; David A Brown; Adam Glener; Alexander Allori; Jeffrey R Marcus Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2019-05-16
Authors: Mohammad S Islam; Gunther Paul; Hui X Ong; Paul M Young; Y T Gu; Suvash C Saha Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-01-07 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Paulo Francisco Guerreiro Cardoso; Helio Minamoto; Benoit Jacques Bibas; Paulo Manuel Pego-Fernandes Journal: Transl Cancer Res Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 1.241