Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_4421_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
30.08.2026
Размер:
63 Мб
Скачать
Nasal Obstruction andSleep-Disordered Breathing
257
16
50. Craig TJ, Hanks CD, Fisher LH.How do topical nasal cortico­steroids improve sleep and daytime somnolence in allergic rhinitis? J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2005;116(6):1264–6. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2005.10.009.
51. How do topical nasal corticosteroids improve sleep and daytime somnolence in allergic rhinitis?– PubMed– NCBI. https://www-
ncbi-nlm-nih-gov. proxy. library. vanderbilt. edu/ pubmed/16337455. Accessed 23 Sept 2019.
52. Golden S, Teets SJ, Lehman EB, et al. Effect of topical nasal azelastine on the symptoms of rhinitis, sleep, and daytime somno­lence in perennial allergic rhinitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2000;85(1):53–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1081-1206(10)62434-9.
53. Santos CB, Hanks C, McCann J, Lehman EB, Pratt E, Craig TJ.The role of montelukast on perennial allergic rhinitis and asso­ciated sleep disturbances and daytime somnolence. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2008;29(2):140–5. https://doi.org/10.2500/aap.2008.29.3097.
54. Camacho M, Malu OO, Kram YA, etal. Nasal dilators (breathe right strips and NoZovent) for snoring and OSA: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pulm Med. 2016;2016:4841310.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/4841310.
55. Schenkel EJ, Ciesla R, Shanga GM. Effects of nasal dilator strips on subjective measures of sleep in subjects with chronic nocturnal nasal congestion: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2018;14:34. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s13223-018-0258-5.
56. Ishii L, Roxbury C, Godoy A, Ishman S, Ishii M.Does nasal surgery improve OSA in patients with nasal obstruction and OSA? A Meta-analysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;153(3):326–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599815594374.
57. Li H-Y, Wang P-C, Chen Y-P, Lee L-A, Fang T-J, Lin H-C.Critical appraisal and meta-analysis of nasal surgery for obstructive sleep apnea. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2011;25(1):45–9.
https://doi.org/10.2500/ajra.2011.25.3558.
58. Ertugay CK, Toros SZ, Karaca CT, etal. Is septoplasty effective on habitual snoring in patients with nasal obstruction? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;272(7):1687–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00405-014-3260-7.
59. Li H-Y, Lin Y, Chen N-H, Lee L-A, Fang T-J, Wang P-C.Improvement in quality of life after nasal surgery alone for patients with obstructive sleep apnea and nasal obstruction. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008;134(4):429–33. https://
doi.org/10.1001/archotol.134.4.429.
60. Shuaib SW, Undavia S, Lin J, Johnson CM, Stupak HD.Can functional septorhinoplasty independently treat obstructive sleep apnea? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(6):1554–65. https://
doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001285.
61. Hisamatsu K, Kudo I, Makiyama K.The effect of compound nasal surgery on obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2015;29(6):e192–6. https://doi.org/10.2500/ajra.2015.29.4254.
62. Moxness MHS, Nordgård S.An observational cohort study of the effects of septoplasty with or without inferior turbinate reduction in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. BMC Ear Nose Throat Disord. 2014;14:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6815-14-11.
63. Park CY, Hong JH, Lee JH, etal. Clinical effect of surgical cor­rection for nasal pathology on the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):PMC4045850. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098765.
64. Xiao Y, Han D, Zang H, Wang D.The effectiveness of nasal sur­gery on psychological symptoms in patients with obstructive sleep apnea and nasal obstruction. Acta Otolaryngol. 2016;136(6):626–
32. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016489.2016.1143120.
65. Weaver TE, Grunstein RR. Adherence to continuous positive airway pressure therapy. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2008;5(2):173–8.
https://doi.org/10.1513/pats.200708-119MG.
66. Camacho M, Riaz M, Capasso R, etal. The effect of nasal sur­gery on continuous positive airway pressure device use and ther­apeutic treatment pressures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep. 2015;38(2):279–86. https://doi.org/10.5665/
sleep.4414.
67. Kempe JS, BuSaba NY, Dobrowski JM, Westover MB, Bianchi MT. A cost-effectiveness analysis of nasal surgery to increase continuous positive airway pressure adherence in sleep apnea patients with nasal obstruction. Laryngoscope. 2017;127(4):977–
83. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.26257.
68. Kim ST, Choi JH, Jeon HG, Cha HE, Kim DY, Chung Y-S.Polysomnographic effects of nasal surgery for snoring and obstructive sleep apnea. Acta Otolaryngol. 2004;124(3):297–
300. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016480410016252.
69. Virkkula P, Bachour A, Hytönen M, etal. Snoring is not relieved by nasal surgery despite improvement in nasal resistance. Chest. 2006;129(1):81–7. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.129.1.81.
70. Choi JH, Kim EJ, Kim YS, etal. Effectiveness of nasal surgery alone on sleep quality, architecture, position, and sleep­disordered breathing in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome with nasal obstruction. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2011;25(5):338–41.
https://doi.org/10.2500/ajra.2011.25.3654.
71. Suoğlu M, Ozmen OA, Kasapoglu F, etal. The efcacy of nasal surgery in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: a prospective clini­cal study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;269(2):487–94.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-011-1682-z.
72. Virkkula P, Hytönen M, Bachour A, etal. Smoking and improve­ment after nasal surgery in snoring men. Am J Rhinol. 2007;21(2):169–73.
73. Friedman M, Tanyeri H, Lim JW, Landsberg R, Vaidyanathan K, Caldarelli D.Effect of improved nasal breathing on obstruc­tive sleep apnea. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;122(1):71–
4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0194-5998(00)70147-1.
74. Li H-Y, Lee L-A, Wang P-C, Chen N-H, Lin Y, Fang T-J.Nasal surgery for snoring in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Laryngoscope. 2008;118(2):354–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/
MLG.0b013e318158f73f.
75. Robison JG, Wilson C, Otteson TD, Chakravorty SS, Mehta DK. Analysis of outcomes in treatment of obstructive sleep apnea in infants. Laryngoscope. 2013;123(9):2306–14. https://
doi.org/10.1002/lary.23685.
76. Shatz A.Indications and outcomes of adenoidectomy in infancy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2004;113(10):835–8. https://doi.
org/10.1177/000348940411301011.
77. Domany KA, Dana E, Tauman R, etal. Adenoidectomy for obstructive sleep Apnea in children. J Clin Sleep Med. 2016;12(9):1285–91. https://doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.6134.
78. Caples SM, Rowley JA, Prinsell JR, etal. Surgical modications of the upper airway for obstructive sleep apnea in adults: a sys­tematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep. 2010;33(10):1396–407.
https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/33.10.1396.
79. healthpolicy. Position statement: nasal surgery and OSAS.American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. https://www. entnet. org/content/nasal-surgery-and-osas. Published March 20, 2014. Accessed 25 Sept 2019.
80. Reinberg A, Gervais P, Levi F, Smolensky M, Del Cerro L, Ugolini C.Circadian and circannual rhythms of allergic rhinitis: an epidemiologic study involving chronobiologic methods. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1988;81(1):51–62. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0091-6749(88)90220-5.
259

Palatal Surgery for OSA Patients

ChandraM.Cherukuri, NeerajKaplish, andJeffreyJ.Stanley
Contents
17.1 Introduction – 260
17.2 Presurgical Evaluation andAirway Assessment toIdentify Site(s) ofCollapse – 260
17.2.1 Friedman Tongue Position andTonsillar Size – 260
17.2.2 Nasopharyngeal Endoscopy – 261
17.2.3 Cephalometrics – 261
17.3 Surgical Management ofOSA – 262
17.3.1 Uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (UPPP)±Tonsillectomy – 262
17.3.2 Modications ofUP3 – 264
17.3.3 Transpalatal Advancement Pharyngoplasty – 264
17.3.4 Palatal Stiening Procedures – 266
17
References – 267
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 K. B. Kim et al. (eds.), Management of Obstructive Sleep Apnea, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54146-0_17
260
Fat
C. M. Cherukuri etal.

17.1 Introduction

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a common form of sleep-disordered breathing. OSA usually results from the combination of a narrowed upper airway and loss of muscle tone during sleep, which leads to partial or com­plete cessation of airow. The upper airway includes the nasal cavity, nasopharynx, oropharynx, hypopharynx, and suparglottis, . Fig. 17.1. The oropharynx (ret­ropalatal area) is considered the most common site of obstruction in patients with OSA [1]. Continuous posi­tive airway pressure (CPAP) increases the intraluminal pressure to maintain the patency of the upper airway and overcome the tendency of airway collapse in indi­viduals with OSA. Current clinical practice guidelines recommend positive airway pressure therapy for treat­ment of OSA in adult patients with impaired sleep­related quality of life, excessive daytime sleepiness, or other associated comorbidities [2]. Although PAP is the primary treatment, many patients experience tolerating PAP limiting the maximum benets from therapy [2, 3]. Because of this, patients may seek alternative treatment modalities including surgical interventions to address their upper airway obstruction.
Surgery can be a primary treatment option in a select group of patients who have identiable anatomi­cal problems (e.g., maxillomandibular abnormalities, tonsillar hypertrophy), but is more commonly utilized as a “salvage” treatment option for CPAP-intolerant patients. Despite a variable cure rate, surgery has been shown to routinely decrease OSA severity and increase quality of life outcomes [4]. For an effective surgical outcome, determining the site or sites of upper airway obstruction is critical in selecting which surgical proce­dures may be most appropriate for each patient.
17.2 Presurgical Evaluation andAirway
Assessment toIdentify Site(s) ofCollapse
Presurgical evaluation performed by a sleep medicine physician should include a comprehensive sleep evalu­ation assessing for comorbid sleep disorders, structured examination of the upper airway, and a diagnostic sleep study. Overnight polysomnography (PSG) is the gold standard for evaluation of OSA and is useful for deter­mining the severity of sleep-disordered breathing as well as identifying other comorbid conditions such as peri­odic limb movements, hypoventilation, and nocturnal hypoxemia.
17.2.1 Friedman Tongue Position
andTonsillar Size
As part of a structured oral examination, Friedman tongue position and tonsillar size grading can be used,
. Fig.17.2a, b [5]. The Friedman tongue position dif-
fers from the Mallampati classication, as the tongue is observed in a natural, neutral position (i.e., no protru­sion). Also, the Friedman position has been correlated with surgical results for OSA, unlike the Mallampati class, which has been correlated with the likelihood of difcult intubation.
The Friedman clinical staging system is based on clinical exam ndings including the Friedman tongue position, tonsil size, and BMI and is divided into four categories [6]. This staging system can help guide sur­gical interventions and predict the surgical success of uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (UPPP). Nevertheless, clinical examination is limited by the inability to directly
17
. Fig. 17.1 Upper airway anatomy.
A– nasopharynx; B– oropharynx; C– hypopharynx; D– supraglottis
Soft palate
Tongue
Airway
Mandible
Spine
Subcutaneous
A
B
C
D
ab
Palatal Surgery forOSA Patients
261
17
. Fig. 17.2 a Friedman tongue/palate position grading. Grade 1:
Entire uvula+tonsils/pillars visible. Grade 2: Base of uvula but ton­sils/pillars not visible. Grade 3: Only soft and hard palate visible. Grade 4: Only hard palate visible. b Friedman Tonsil Size grading
visualize the nasopharynx and hypopharynx to localize all potential sites of upper airway obstruction. Further diagnostic evaluation with nasopharyngeal endoscopy and cephalometric analysis can aid in further assess­ment of the upper airway.
[10]. Grade 1: Tonsils hidden within pillars. Grade 2: Tonsils extend to the pillars. Grade 3; Extend past the pillars (3/4th way to midline). Grade 4: Extend to the midline (“kissing tonsils”)
a valid assessment of the upper airway, with moderate to substantial test–retest reliability and moderate-to­substantial inter-rater reliability [6, 7]. Classication for obstruction during DISE is dened with regard to the degree of obstruction and pattern of collapse (i.e., ante­rior–posterior, lateral, and concentric) [6].
A recent meta-analysis of obstructive sites in OSA
17.2.2 Nasopharyngeal Endoscopy
patients based on a DISE examination reported that patients were likely to have multilevel obstruction rather
Flexible nasopharyngeal endoscopy aids in identifying potential sites of collapse of the upper airway and can be performed while awake or in a drug-induced sleep­like state. Endoscopic examination allows visualizing the entire nasal cavity and nasopharynx (assessing sep­tal deviation, turbinate hypertrophy, nasal polyps, etc.), hypopharynx (assessing for the lateral pharyngeal walls, base of the tongue, and lingual tonsils), along with assess-
than single-site obstruction. The majority of patients were obstructed at the soft palate (84%), followed by the base of the tongue (52%) [7]. These results emphasize the importance of performing nasopharyngeal endos­copy for evaluation of patients with OSA due to the high likelihood of multilevel upper airway obstruction and the inability to appropriately assess the entire length of the upper airway on clinical exam alone.
ment of the supraglottis for potential epiglottic collapse.
During awake endoscopy, Mueller’s maneuver is
performed with a closed mouth and an obstructed nose
17.2.3 Cephalometrics
during maximal inspiration. This maneuver increases the intraluminal negative pressure to mimic sleep­related dynamic upper airway collapse. Drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) is performed under mild seda­tion (using propofol or midazolam), and has the abil­ity to mimic the dynamics of upper airway collapse during a sleep-like state. DISE has been shown to be
Cephalometric analysis using plain x-rays or Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) is an additional tool to assess upper airway dimensions and aid in the surgical evaluation of OSA patients. CBCT data include a variety of objective airway measurements that help identify poten­tial sites of obstruction in patients with OSA, . Fig.17.3.
262
C. M. Cherukuri etal.
S
Surgeries for OSA can be broadly divided into two categories:
1. Single level– usually Palate.
2. Multilevel– usually Palate+Hypopharynx.
N
In this chapter, we will primarily focus on single-level surgeries on the palate.
17
PNS
ANS
P
Go
PAS
MP
H
Gn
Cephalometric Measures Normal values
SNA 82°+3°
SNB 79°+3°
H-MP 15 mm +3 mm
PAS 11 mm +1 mm
PNS-P 37 mm +3 mm
. Fig. 17.3 Cephalometric tracing and analysis with normal ceph-
alometric values. SNA sella-nasion-infraspinale, SNB sella-nasion­supramentale, H-MP hyoid-mandibular plane, PAS posterior airway space, PNS-P length of soft palate
A
B
Studies have shown that a posterior airway space (PAS) <8 mm is predictive of tongue base collapse [8]. A recent study evaluating the correlation between Friedman Tongue Position (FTP) and airway cepha­lometric measures in OSA patients identied that the posterior airway space (PAS) and minimal retroglossal cross- sectional area had an inverse relationship with FTP [9].
17.3 Surgical Management ofOSA
Current guidelines recommend that patients who are deemed to be surgical candidates should be counseled regarding success rates and complications of appropri­ate surgical techniques [10]. Based on localization of upper airway obstruction, a variety of surgical proce­dures have been described, primarily focusing on the palate in order to increase the physical size of the upper airway.
17.3.1 Uvulopalatopharyngoplasty
(UPPP)±Tonsillectomy
Although a multitude of surgical treatment modalities exist, the most commonly performed technique remains the uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (UPPP). In theory, UPPP provides improved patency of the airway by addressing the obstruction at the retropalatal area.
Surgical Technique
z
Performed under general anesthesia, this procedure involves resection of the redundant soft palatal tissue and anterior tonsillar pillar, back cuts in the posterior tonsillar pillars, and re-approximation of the mucosal edges. If present, tonsillectomy is performed at the same surgical setting (. Fig.17.4).
17.3.1.1 Success Rate of UPPP
Historically, the denition of “success” following sur­gical intervention for OSA in the ENT literature is a reduction in apnea hypopnea index (AHI) of >50% and an AHI of <20 (the previous denition of mild OSA prior to the introduction of the new American Academy of Sleep Medicine severity scale adopted in 1999). The criteria for cure is dened as an AHI <5 following treat­ment [9]. In order to avoid controversy regarding de­nitions, a substantial “improvement” in the underlying OSA severity is probably a better description than true “success” for postoperative results.
Reported “success” rates of UPPP vary consider­ably. The overall “success” rate for UPPP in unselected patients is approximately 40% [10] with an overall reduction in AHI of 33% based on meta-analysis data. A retrospective analysis using a Friedman clinical stag­ing system for patients with OSA appears to be a valu­able predictor of UPPP success. Utilizing this staging system, the UPPP success rate was 80% for stage I patients, 37% for stage II patients, and 8% for stage III patients, . patients with Friedman stage I and II and combined ndings of awake nasopharyngeal endoscopy with Mueller’s maneuver in patient selection for UPPP.This subset of highly selected patients who were found to have retropalatal obstruction only had a success rate of 95% [12]. These reports of improved surgical success
Table17.1 [11]. Another study selected OSA
Palatal Surgery forOSA Patients
263
17
with UPPP highlight the importance of accurately iden­tifying the site or sites of obstruction in patient selec­tion.
17.3.1.2 Limitations of UPPP
There are several limitations of UPPP surgery:
1. The principal improvement is an increase in the anteroposterior retropalatal airway.
. Table 17.1 Friedman clinical staging system for
sleep-disordered breathing and UPPP “success” rates
Stage I Stage II Stage III
Friedman palate position
Tonsil size 3–4 0–2 3–4 0–2 A ny
BMI <40 <40 <40 <40 >40
UPPP success
a
rate
a
AHI reduction 50% and AHI <20
1–2 1–2 3–4 3–4 Any
80% 37% 8%
2. UPPP does NOT improve lateral dimensions of the upper airway.
3. UPPP does NOT address potential retroglossal collapse.
4. UPPP does NOT address the decrease in the upper airway dilator muscle tone observed during sleep.
17.3.1.3 Impact of UPPP
Quality of Life Indices:
z
Isolated UPPP has been shown to improve subjective outcomes such as excessive daytime sleepiness (assessed by Epworth sleepiness scale) and disease-specic quality of life measures (assessed by the validated Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire). The Epworth Sleepiness Scale has been shown to normalize in 75% of patients at 6months following UPPP and the Functional Outcomes Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ) normalized at 3months postoperatively [13, 14].
Biomarkers:
z
A signicant reduction in serum levels of high- sensitivity C-reactive protein have been observed 6months follow­ing UPPP in OSA patients without a pre-existing diag­nosis of cardiovascular disease [15].
. Fig. 17.4 Uvulopalatopharyngoplasty
17
264
C. M. Cherukuri etal.
Survival:
z
A retrospective cohort study among veterans suggests that UPPP provides a 30% greater long-term survival than CPAP, after adjusting for age, gender, race, date of treatment, and comorbidity [16]. There was also a sig­nicant decrease in reported habitual sleepiness while driving and decreased risk of motor vehicle accidents following UPPP [17].
17.3.1.4 Complications of UPPP
The anatomic and physiologic abnormalities associated with OSA increase the risk of perioperative complica­tion in OSA patients undergoing surgery.
Early Complications
z
In a large cohort of UPPP patients, the reported inci­dences of serious nonfatal complications and 30-day mortality following UPPP are 1.5% and 0.2%, respec­tively [18]. Postoperative edema and respiratory depres­sion increase the risk of reintubation or emergent tracheotomy within the rst few hours following sur­gery. Most patients are able to tolerate liquids on the rst postoperative day, although with signicant pain. As with any procedure inclusive of tonsillectomy, the risk of postoperative bleeding requiring additional sur­gical intervention is 1–4%.
Late Complications
z
Velopharyngeal insufciency is a rare, but serious com­plication of UPPP, occurring in <1% of patients. This complication can usually be prevented by avoidance of aggressive resection of the underlying soft palatal mus­culature. A globus sensation in the oropharyngeal area is reported by nearly half of the patients following UPPP and is frequently described as a foreign body sensation or as a sense of excessive mucous accumulation at the free edge of the soft palate. Nasopharyngeal stenosis is an extremely rare late complication following UPPP, but can result in worsening of nasal airow in patients who develop excessive scarring following surgery.
17.3.2 Modications ofUP3
Several modications of UPPP have been introduced with the intent of improving success rates and reduc­ing the rate of postoperative complications. The most common of these surgeries, including uvulopalatoap, z- palatoplasty, and expansion sphincter pharyngo­plasty, are described in detail below.
17.3.2.1 Uvulopalatoap
This surgery is performed under general anesthesia. After tonsillectomy is done, the mucosa overlying the uvula and soft palate is denuded. The muscular tip of
the exposed uvula is then retracted superiorly toward the hard–soft palate junction [19]. The goal of this mod­ication of UPPP is to reduce the likelihood of compli­cations related to scar contracture and the development of nasopharyngeal stenosis. An additional benet of this modication is that it is potentially reversible since no muscular tissue is resected (see . Fig.17.5).
17.3.2.2 Z-Palatopharyngoplasty
This modication of UPPP was designed to improve sur­gical success rates in patients who had undergone previ­ous tonsillectomy [20]. The procedure involves denuding the mucosa of the uvula and soft palate, splitting the soft palate, and completing a subsequent anterolateral advancement, without resection of muscular tissue (see
. Fig. 17.6). This results in contracture tension lines
resulting in further widening of the airway, particularly in the lateral dimension, which is otherwise difcult to achieve with traditional UPPP in patients who have undergone previous tonsillectomy. The result is higher success rates for Friedman stage II patients. One poten­tial downside to this procedure is that there is a higher incidence of temporary velopharyngeal insufciency [21].
17.3.2.3 Expansion Sphincter Pharyngoplasty
This modication of UPPP was developed for a selected subset of OSA patients with small tonsils, Friedman stage II or III, and lateral pharyngeal wall collapse noted on endoscopic examination. The procedure involves transec­tion of the inferior aspect of the palatopharygeus muscle with intact attachment to the superior constrictor mus­cles, rotation superolaterally, and subsequent submucosal attachment to the soft palate anteriorly (see . Fig.17.7). Once complete, uvulectomy is performed [22]. The goal of this procedure is a reduction in lateral pharyngeal wall collapse. This surgery has better success rates than tradi­tional UPPP, but there may be a slightly increased inci­dence of postoperative dysphagia (see . Table17.2).
17.3.3 Transpalatal Advancement
Pharyngoplasty
This procedure is typically used as a treatment for patients with persistent OSA and a persistently nar­rowed retropalatal airway. Surgery involves elevation of the mucosa off the hard palate and subsequent resection of a portion of the hard palate. The soft palate is then advanced anteriorly following tensor tendonolysis (see
. Fig. 17.8). The tensor tendons are then re-approxi-
mated to soft tissue near the hammulus and the ante­rior and posterior hard palatal segments are sutured together [23]. The benet of this surgical technique is that it increases both the anteroposterior and the lateral dimensions of the retropalatal airway.
Palatal Surgery forOSA Patients
Uvulopalatal Flap (UPF)
265
17
. Fig. 17.5 Uvulopalatal ap procedure
Z-PALATOPLASTY
. Fig. 17.6 Z-palatoplasty
266
C. M. Cherukuri etal.
Expansion sphincter
pharyngoploasty
17
. Fig. 17.7 Expansion sphincter pharyngoplasty
. Table 17.2 Expansion sphincter pharyngoplasty (ESP)
vs. uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (UPPP)
ESP UPPP
Preop AHI 44.2 38.1
Postop AHI 12 19.6
Success rate
a
AHI reduction 50% and AHI <20
a
82.6% 68.1%
17.3.4 Palatal Stiening Procedures
Palatal stiffening procedures have been developed to be a less invasive means of improving retropalatal col­lapse in patients with OSA.These procedures include radiofrequency volumetric tissue reduction and cautery­assisted palatal stiffening operation.
17.3.4.1 Radiofrequency Volumetric Tissue
Reduction (RFTA)
Radiofrequency volumetric tissue reduction is a mini­mally invasive multistep palatal procedure that involves delivery of a high-frequency alternating current into the palate with resultant protein coagulation and tissue necrosis. The ultimate goal is a reduction in soft palatal tissue volume. The efcacy of RFTA in management of mild OSA (dened as AHI 5–15) is comparable to UPP. However, because of less morbidity and fewer treatment-related complications, it is often thought of as a favorable surgical alternative to UPPP in patients with mild OSA [24]. In addition, this procedure can be performed under local anesthesia, avoiding the necessity of general anesthesia with its inherent risks.
17.3.4.2 Cautery-Assisted Palatal Stiening
Operation
This procedure is also less invasive than UPPP. It involves removal of a rectangular area (7mm × 5cm) of soft palatal mucosa, uvulectomy, and vertical cuts
ab
Palatal Surgery forOSA Patients
267
17
. Fig. 17.8 Transpalatal advancement pharyngoplasty
into the soft palate on either side of the uvula (see
. Fig.17.9). Elevation of the soft palate results from
brosis and retraction at the site of mucosal resection. Similar to RFTA, this procedure can also be performed under local anesthesia.

References

. Fig. 17.9 Cautery-assisted palatal stiffening procedure
1. Lin S-W, Chen N-H, Li H-Y, etal. A comparison of the long­term outcome and effects of surgery or continuous positive air­way pressure on patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Laryngoscope. 2006;116:1012–6.
2. Schwab RJ, Gefter WB, Hoffman EA, Gupta KB, Pack AI.Dynamic upper airway imaging during awake respiration in normal subjects and patients with sleep disordered breathing. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1993;148:1385.
3. Rodriguez-Bruno K, Goldberg AN, McCulloch KEJ.Test retest reliability of drug-induced endoscopy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;140:646–51.
4. Kezirian EJ, White DP, Malhotra A, McCulloch CE, Goldberg AN.Interrater reliability of drug-induced sleep endoscopy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;136:393–7.
5. Kezirian EJ, Hohenhorst W, de Vries N. Drug-induced sleep endoscopy: the VOTE classication. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryn­gol. 2011;268:1233.
6. Lee EJ, Cho JH.Meta-analysis of obstruction site observed with drug-induced sleep endoscopy in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Laryngoscope. 2019;129:1235.
7. Patil SP, Ayappa IA, Caples SM, Kimoff RJ, Patel SR, Har­rod CG.Treatment of adult obstructive sleep Apnea with posi­tive airway pressure: an American Academy of Sleep Medicine