Published ahead of print on October 11, 2002, doi:10.1164/rccm.200206-613OC
© 2003 American Thoracic Society
Upper Airway Size Analysis by Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Children with Obstructive Sleep Apnea SyndromeDivision of Pulmonary Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, and Division of Sleep Medicine and Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Raanan Arens, M.D., Division of Pulmonary Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 34th Street and Civic Center Blvd., Philadelphia, PA 19104-4399. E-mail: arens{at}email.chop.edu
Detailed analysis of the upper airway has not been performed in children with obstructive sleep apnea. We used magnetic resonance imaging and automatic segmentation to delineate the upper airway in 20 children with obstructive sleep apnea and in 20 control subjects (age, 3.7 ± 1.4 versus 3.9 ± 1.7 years, respectively). We measured mean and minimal cross-sectional area, length, and volume of: (1) the total airway; (2) regions along the adenoid, tonsils, and where adenoid and tonsils overlap; and (3) 10 segments at 10% increments along the airway. The mean cross-sectional area of the total airway of the obstructive sleep apnea group was significantly smaller in comparison with the control group, 28.1 ± 12.6 versus 47.1 ± 18.2 mm2, respectively (p < 0.0005). Minimal cross-sectional area and airway volume were smaller in this group, 4.6 ± 3.3 versus 15.7 ± 12.7 mm2 (p < 0.0005), and 1,129 ± 515 versus 1,794 ± 846 mm3 (p < 0.005), respectively. Regional analysis suggested that the upper airway in children with obstructive sleep apnea is most restricted where adenoid and tonsils overlap. Segmental analysis demonstrated that the upper airway is restricted throughout the initial two-thirds of its length and that the narrowing is not in a discrete region adjacent to either the adenoid or tonsils, but rather in a continuous fashion along both.
Key Words: magnetic resonance imaging obstructive sleep apnea syndrome upper airway
Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) in children is a common disorder and may affect as many as 2% of children (1, 2). Both anatomic and physiologic factors affecting upper airway size, shape, and function may play a role in the causation of OSAS in children. Frequently, OSAS is associated with adenotonsillar hyperplasia; however, abnormalities in craniofacial anatomy, neuromotor tone, or airway compliance should be considered as possible causes in children with the disorder when no apparent adenotonsillar hyperplasia is present. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allows visualization and accurate measurement of the upper airway as well as of the various soft tissues and skeleton comprising it (36). Using MRI, we have previously shown that children with OSAS and no apparent craniofacial or neurologic disorder have decreased upper airway volume and increased adenoid and tonsillar volume in comparison with control subjects (5). The three-dimensional relationship between the upper airway, adenoid, and tonsils has not been previously studied in children with OSAS. The aim of the present study was to characterize the differential contribution of the adenoid and tonsils to airway restriction along the upper airway by determining the cross-sectional airway area in planes orthogonal to the upper airway axis. To this end, we used a new methodology, developed on the basis of fuzzy connectedness-based automatic segmentation (79), that enabled us to visualize and analyze the upper airway in a correct anatomic orientation as it relates to airflow and further delineate the upper airway changes that occur in children with OSAS.
Subjects with OSAS Twenty children were recruited from the pool of patients evaluated for sleep-disordered breathing at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, PA). After OSAS was confirmed by polysomnography, parents provided consent for the sedation and upper airway MRI of their child; children older than 6 years provided their own consent. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board.
Control Subjects
Overnight Polysomnography
Sleep Questionnaire
Magnetic Resonance Imaging All MR images were obtained as part of a larger ongoing study (unpublished data), using a comprehensive MR protocol. Images of 15 of the 40 subjects in this study (9 subjects with OSAS and 6 control subjects) were used in a previous study (5), and were now processed for the first time according to the new methodology (see below) to further delineate airway anatomic characteristics. MRI was performed with a 1.5-T Vision System (Siemens, Iselin, NJ). Images were acquired with an anteriorposterior volume head coil. The patient's head was positioned supine in the soft tissue Frankfort plane (tragus of the ear to orbital fissure) perpendicular to the table. Sequential T2-weighted spin-echo axial sections were obtained, spanning from the orbital cavity to the larynx. Mean acquisition time was 2 minutes, spin-echo repetition time (TR) = 650 milliseconds, echo time (TE) = 14 milliseconds, 192 x 256 matrix, slice thickness 3 mm with distance factor 0, one acquisition, field of view (FOV) = 20 to 24 cm, rectangular FOV 6/8.
Image Processing and Anatomic Measurements
Upper airway centerline. We computed a centerline through the airway that passes through all points that are maximally distant from the perimeter of the airway at sequential planes orthogonal to the airway axis. The centerline was bounded by the upper nasopharynx (defined as the posterior edge of the vomer) and the lower oropharynx (defined as the most superior part of the epiglottis). Centerline length was defined as the distance along the centerline between the two boundaries. Airway regions adjacent to adenoid, tonsils, and the overlap region between adenoid and tonsils were measured along the centerline. Because the lower poles of the tonsils extend at times below the oropharynx, measurement of the airway length, area, and volume adjacent to the tonsils was performed along an extended airway centerline as defined above.
Upper airway cross-sectional area measurements.
Upper airway volume measurements.
Data Analysis
We studied 20 children with OSAS, mean age 3.7 ± 1.4 years (range, 1.97.9 years), and 20 matched control subjects, mean age 3.9 ± 1.7 years (range, 1.97.8 years). Children with OSAS were not significantly different from control subjects with respect to age, sex, ethnicity, height, or weight (Table 1) . All control subjects had normal development and cognitive function, intact tonsils and adenoid, and no respiratory disorders or craniofacial anomalies. The primary indications for head MRI of control subjects were as follows: single seizure/febrile convulsion (10 subjects), migraine/headache (6 subjects), head concussion (2 subjects), limping (1 subject), and dizziness (1 subject). Thus, none of these clinical indications would be expected to affect upper airway anatomy.
Polysomnography For subjects with OSAS the mean total sleep time during polysomnography was 7.6 ± 0.6 hours. The mean respiratory variables values during this period were as follows: apnea index, 2.6 ± 4.1; apnea/hypopnea index, 8.4 ± 9.5; baseline peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), 96 ± 1%; SpO2 nadir, 85 ± 7%. Thus, these data suggest mildmoderate OSAS in this group.
Sleep Questionnaire
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Airway analysis. The mean cross-sectional area of the total upper airway of the OSAS group was significantly smaller in comparison with the control group, 28.1 ± 12.6 versus 47.1 ± 18.2 mm2 (p < 0.0005). Similarly, the minimal cross-sectional area and upper airway volume were smaller in this group, 4.6 ± 3.3 versus 15.7 ± 12.7 mm2 (p < 0.0005) and 1,129 ± 515 versus 1,794 ± 846 mm3 (p < 0.005), respectively. The upper airway centerline length was similar in subjects with OSAS and control subjects, 40.2 ± 5.8 versus 37.1 ± 8.2 mm (p = NS), respectively.
Regional analysis.
Segmental analysis. Airway length is dependent on height and age. To normalize our measurements along the upper airway nasopharynx and oropharynx, we performed a similar analysis throughout the airway centerline based on 10 segments representing 10% total length increments; this is shown graphically in Figures 3A3C . Accordingly, significantly smaller mean cross-sectional area, minimal cross-sectional area, and volume were noted in subjects with OSAS in the upper 6070% of the upper airway, whereas in the lower regions of the upper airway, these parameters were similar in both groups.
We used MRI to study the size of the upper airway in children with OSAS. Our findings suggest that the upper airway of children with OSAS is restricted along the upper two-thirds of its length and predominantly in the region where the adenoid and tonsils overlap. Some methodological issues need initial comment. The upper airway has a complex shape formed by various tissues with heterogeneous compositions that surround the air column. This, along with airway boundary motion, results in some MR signal gradation and blurring. This was true in the present study when data were collected during a 2-minute period throughout numerous respiratory cycles. Fuzzy connectedness is a computational method of object segmentation that takes into account the effects of tissue heterogeneity, imaging noise, and blurring. This method determines voxels that comprise an object by assigning weights to each voxel on the basis of its spatial nearness, similarity of intensity, and pathwise relationship to all other voxels. The resultant fuzzy object is a pool of voxels with a membership value that represents its strength as a member of the object (7, 8). Fuzzy connectedness is a robust tool for airway segmentation. It achieves an intraoperator and interoperator variation of less than 0.87% and the accuracy of volume and delineation was found to be 97% as compared with expert manual segmentation (9). In addition, when applied to the airway, fuzzy connectedness was performed in less than 10% of the time required for manual segmentation (9). For the most reliable comparison of the OSAS group with the control group, we performed a casecontrol study and matched each subject with OSAS by age, height, weight, sex, and ethnicity. All could influence the airway by affecting size, shape, and function of the surrounding tissues, including muscle, lymphoid, fat, and bone (5, 15, 16). Our control subjects did not undergo polysomnography and were screened only by history and a standardized questionnaire. No obstructive events were observed in the control subjects during imaging. To obtain optimal MR images in young children, mild sedation to avoid body movement is necessary and is routinely used in our institution. Sedation can reduce upper airway muscle activity compared with wakefulness and could have affected our airway measurements (17). It is possible that sedation had a bigger effect on upper airway muscle activation in subjects with OSAS compared with control subjects, amplifying the differences between the groups in our study. Moreover, sedation could have caused partial or complete airway obstruction during data acquisition, leading to increased motion and resulting in more blurring of our images in the OSAS group. Hence, the limitation of sedation in our study should be recognized. In the present study we confirm our previous finding (5), suggesting that the size of the upper airway in children with OSAS is smaller compared with normal children. However, the current study was more comprehensive because it was designed to identify the actual site(s) of restriction along the upper airway path and the role of the adenoid and tonsils in airway restriction in these subjects, using a new methodology. In the previous study, we used T1 images for airway analysis. The airway measurements included a single axial cross-sectional area at the midtonsillar level, an airway volume derived from sequential 3-mm axial slices, and a single nasopharyngeal cross-sectional area obtained from a midsagittal image. All measurements were made manually with the program VIDA and no airway reconstruction was performed. In the present study, we reconstructed the airway using T2 images with a new algorithm in a program 3DVIEWNIX. This method is a multistep process, including nonmanual fuzzy connectedness delineation, interpolation, filtering, and thresholding that results in a three-dimensional display of the airway, centerline, area profile, and cross-sectional images (9). This method enables accurate representation of the airway as it relates to airflow and surrounding tissues and is significantly more efficient than manual segmentation. In the present study, we found that the upper airway cross-sectional area varies along the airway centerline in a similar form in both normal children and in children with OSAS, with the OSAS group being about one-half smaller in the upper two-thirds of the airway. In both groups, about 20 to 60% of the airway represents a region where adenoid and tonsils overlap (Figure 3, bottom); this region corresponds to the lowest mean and minimal airway cross-sectional areas. It is possible that airway obstruction in children with OSAS occurs in this region. However, our study could not prove this speculation because of the relatively long MR acquisition time, and further investigation in another study using faster MR sequences will be needed to visualize dynamic changes of the airway during respiration. Isono and coworkers (18) assessed the collapsibility and minimal cross-sectional area of the passive airway in children with OSAS (age, 7.6 ± 3.5 years). These children were studied under general anesthesia and measurements were performed by endoscopy at discrete levels including the adenoid, soft palate, tonsils, and tongue. These investigators noted the mean highest closing pressure and minimal cross-sectional area to occur mostly at the levels of adenoid and soft palate. These findings suggesting that higher airway segments are more involved in children with OSAS support our findings showing restriction in the upper two-thirds of the airway. Although the total centerline length was similar in OSAS and control groups, in regions adjacent to the adenoid and where the adenoid and tonsils overlap, the lengths were significantly longer in the OSAS group (22.6 ± 5.5 versus 19.5 ± 3.8 mm, p < 0.05, and 15.4 ± 4.5 versus 12.5 ± 3.1 mm, p < 0.05, respectively). This could be related to the increased extension of lymphoid tissue in OSAS and the more tortuous path along the centerline in these narrowed regions. In addition, segmental analysis along the entire centerline suggests that the upper airway of children with OSAS is restricted compared with control subjects over the initial 6070% of its length. The narrowing is not a discrete region adjacent to either the adenoid or tonsils, but rather occurs in a continuous fashion along both. These observations suggest that flow resistance is higher in these regions, and complete obstruction during inspiration in sleep may be more likely where narrowing occurs and high negative pressures are developed. Interestingly, segmental analysis suggests that airway measurements below the region of maximal restriction (i.e., region of overlap between adenoid and tonsils) are similar in both groups (Figure 3). This could explain to some extent why clinical assessment of the tonsils and airway that are below this region of restriction do not predict the existence or severity of OSAS (1921). In summary, we used MRI to analyze the size of the upper airway in children with OSAS. Our results suggest that the upper airway in children with OSAS is significantly smaller with respect to airway volume, mean airway cross-sectional area, and minimal cross-sectional area compared with matched control subjects. We also noted that the upper airway in children with OSAS is restricted along the initial 6070% of its length and most affected in regions where adenoid and tonsils overlap.
Supported by grants HL-62408 and MO1-RR00240 from the National Institutes of Health. Received in original form June 26, 2002; accepted in final form October 4, 2002
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||