Open AccessDrug‐Induced Sleep Endoscopy vs Awake Müller’s Maneuver in the Diagnosis of Severe Upper Airway Obstruction
Author(s) -
Soares Danny,
Folbe Adam J.,
Yoo George,
Badr M. Safwan,
Rowley James A.,
Lin HoSheng
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
otolaryngology–head and neck surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.232
H-Index - 121
eISSN - 1097-6817
pISSN - 0194-5998
DOI - 10.1177/0194599812460505
Subject(s) - medicine , airway , endoscopy , obstructive sleep apnea , airway obstruction , tongue , epiglottis , incidence (geometry) , surgery , anesthesia , larynx , pathology , physics , optics
Objective To compare fiber‐optic nasal endoscopy with Müller’s maneuver (FNMM) against drug‐induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) in diagnosing the presence of severe level‐specific upper airway collapse in patients with obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS). Study Design Case series with chart review. Setting Tertiary care academic center. Subjects and Methods Medical records of all adult patients undergoing diagnostic DISE as part of their surgical evaluation were reviewed. Patients were included if they had undergone FNMM and had documented Friedman tongue position and tonsillar grade prior to DISE. Airway obstruction on both endoscopic procedures was described according to airway level and severity. Severe airway obstruction was defined as >75% collapse on endoscopy. Results Fifty‐three patients were included in this study. Fiber‐optic nasal endoscopy with Müller’s maneuver and DISE did not differ significantly regarding the presence of severe retropalatal airway collapse. There was a statistically significant difference in the incidence of severe retrolingual collapse identified via DISE (84.9% [45/53]) compared with FNMM (35.8% [19/53]; P <. 0001). This discrepancy between FNMM and DISE findings was statistically significant in individuals with Friedman I and II tongue positions (FNMM = 16.7%, DISE = 88.9%, P <. 0001) and individuals with Friedman III tongue position (FNMM = 31.8%, DISE = 81.8%, P =. 002). Patients with Friedman IV showed no significant difference ( P =. 65) between FNMM (69.2%) and DISE (84.6%). Conclusion This study shows a significant difference between FNMM and DISE in the identification of severe retrolingual collapse. Since the effectiveness of surgical interventions depends largely on the accurate preoperative identification of the site of obstruction, further scrutiny of each diagnostic endoscopic technique is warranted.