medigraphic.com
Anales de Otorrinolaringología Mexicana

2025, Número 2

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

Otorrinolaringología 2025; 70 (2)


Repetibilidad de la faringometría acústica en niños

Portillo VAM, Castorena MAR, Torres FMG, Pérez PJR

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 29
Paginas: 72-80
Archivo PDF: 473.33 Kb.


RESUMEN

Objetivo: Evaluar la reproducibilidad de las faringometrías acústicas practicadas en la población pediátrica.
Materiales y Métodos: Estudio observacional, analítico, longitudinal y prospectivo, que incluyó niños de 3 a 14 años evaluados con el faringómetro acústico Eccovision, con guías basadas en trabajos publicados previamente. Se registraron tres lecturas con maniobra oral y tres con maniobra nasal por visita, con la primera visita al reclutamiento, la segunda dos a tres horas después y la tercera una semana después. Se utilizaron las pruebas ANOVA, coeficiente de correlación intraclase (CCI) y coeficiente de variación para el análisis.
Resultados: Se incluyeron 24 niños con edad promedio de 7.9 ± 3.3 años que realizaron la maniobra nasal y 14 la maniobra oral. El coeficiente de correlación intraclase en la maniobra oral para todas las mediciones fue de 0.75 a 094. Los análisis con ANOVA no mostraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre las mediciones a través del tiempo y el coeficiente de variación fue de 0.09 a 0.17 para las tres mediciones.
Conclusiones: La faringometría acústica practicada con procedimientos estandarizados produce resultados reproducibles en niños.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Kamal I. Acoustic pharyngometry patterns of snoring and obstructive sleep apnea patients. OtolaryngolHead Neck Surg 2004; 130: 58-66. https://doi.org.10.1016/j.otohns.2003.08.008

  2. Gelardi M, Del Giudice AM, Cariti F, Cassano M, et al. Acoustic pharyngometry: Clinical and instrumentalcorrelations in sleep disorders. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2007; 73 (2): 257-65.

  3. Fredberg JJ, Wohl ME, Glass GM, Dorkin HL. Airway area by acoustic reflections measured at the mouth.J Appl Physiol 1980; 48 (5): 749-58. https:/doi.org.10.1152/jappl.1980.48.5.749

  4. Brooks LJ, Castile RG, Glass GM, Griscom NT, et al. Reproducibility and accuracy of airway area by acousticreflection. J Appl Physiol 1984; 57 (3): 777-87. https://doi.org.10.1152/jappl.1984.57.3.777

  5. Louis B, Glass G, Kresen B, Fredberg J. Airway area by acoustic reflection: The two-microphone method. JBiomech Eng 1993; 115 (3): 278-85. https://doi.org.10.1115/1.2895487

  6. Marshall I, Maran NJ, Martin S, Jan M, et al. Acoustic reflectometry for airway measurements in man:implementation and validation. Physiol Meas 1993; 14: 157-69. https://doi.org.10.1088/0967-3334/14/2/007

  7. Tsolakis IA, Venkat D, Hans MG, Alonso A, Palomo JM. When static meets dynamic: Comparing cone-beamcomputed tomography and acoustic reflection for upper airway analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2016;150 (4): 643-50. https://doi.org.10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.03.024

  8. Thakur VK, Londhe SM, Kumar P, Sharma M, et al. Evaluation and quantification of airway changes inClass II division 1 patients undergoing myofunctional therapy using twin block appliance. Med J ArmedForces India 2021; 77 (1): 28-31. https://doi.org.10.1016/j.mjafi.2020.01.00

  9. Kamal I. Normal standard curve for acoustic pharyngometry. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001; 124 (3):323-30. https://doi.org.10.1067/mhn.2001.113136

  10. Leboulanger N, Louis B, Fodil R, Boelle PY, et al. Analysis of the pharynx and the trachea by the acousticreflection method in children: A pilot study. Respir Physiol Neurobiol 2011; 175 (2): 228-33. https://doi.org.10.1016/j.resp.2010.11.008

  11. Bradley TD, Brown IG, Grossman RF, Zamel N, et al. Pharyngeal size in snorers, nonsnorers, and patients withobstructive sleep apnea. N Engl J Med 1986; 315 (21): 1327-31. https://doi.org.10.1056/NEJM198611203152105

  12. Corda L, Redolfi S, Taranto Montemurro L, Piana GE, et al. Short- and long-term effects of CPAP on upperairway anatomy and collapsibility in OSAH. Sleep Breath 2009; 13 (2): 187-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11325-008-0219-1

  13. Sahoo NK, Agarwal SS, Datana S, Bhandari SK. Effect of mandibular advancement surgery on tongue lengthand height and its correlation with upper airway dimensions. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2020; 19 (4): 624-9.https://doi.org.10.1007/s12663-020-01375-2

  14. Masiyev H, Katar O, Süslü AE, Atay G, Özer S. The utility of acoustic pharyngometry in treatment of obstructivesleep apnea patients with expansion sphincter pharyngoplasty surgery. Sleep Breath 2022; 26 (4).https://doi.org.10.1007/S11325-021-02554-2

  15. Agarwal SS, Datana S, Roy ID, Andhare P. Effectiveness of titratable oral appliance in management of moderateto severe obstructive sleep apnea—A prospective clinical study with acoustic pharyngometry. Indian JOtolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2022; 74 (3): 409-15. https://doi.org.10.1007/s12070-021-02976-

  16. Opsahl UL, Berge M, Lehmann S, Bjorvatn B, et al. Acoustic pharyngometry - A new method to facilitateoral appliance therapy. J Oral Rehabil 2021; 48 (5): 601-13. https://doi.org.10.1111/joor.13134

  17. Zhao Y, Li X, Ma J. Combined application of pharyngeal volume and minimal cross-sectional area may behelpful in screening persons suspected of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Sleep Breath 2022; 26 (1): 243-50.https://doi.org.10.1007/s11325-021-02358-4

  18. Monahan KJ, Larkin EK, Rosen CL, Graham G, Redline S. Utility of noninvasive pharyngometry in epidemiologicstudies of childhood sleep-disordered breathing. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 165 (11): 1499-503. https://doi.org.10.1164/rccm.200111-061OC

  19. Bokov P, Essalhi M, Medjahdi N, Boureghda S, et al. The utility of acoustic pharyngometry and rhinometryin pediatric obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Sleep Med 2019; 58: 75-81. https://doi.org.10.1016/j.sleep.2019.03.003

  20. Francesco RC Di, Kreibich MS. Is the difference in the volume of the pharyngeal space, as measured byacoustic pharyngometry, before and after tonsillectomy proportional to the volume of the excised tonsils?Clin (Sao Paulo) 2016; 71 (5): 285-90. https://doi.org.10.6061/clinics/2016(05)08

  21. Al Ali A, Bois E, Boujemla I, Teissier N, et al. Evaluation of tonsillotomy effects on pharyngeal volumeand compliance in children. Otolaryngol - Head Neck Surg (United States) 2020; 162 (2): 230-3. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599819889912

  22. Agarwal SS, Datana S, Sahoo NK, Bhandari SK. Evaluation of airway dimensions following mandibularsetback with surgery-first orthognathic versus conventional orthognathic approach. J Maxillofac Oral Surg2021; 20 (2): 296-303. https://doi.org.10.1007/s12663-020-01379-y

  23. Leboulanger N, Louis B, Vialle R, Heron B, Fauroux B. Analysis of the upper airway by the acoustic reflectionmethod in children with mucopolysaccharidosis. Pediatr Pulmonol 2011; 46 (6): 587-94. doi: 10.1002/ppul.21409

  24. Brooks LJ, Byard PJ, Fouke JM, Strohl KP. Reproducibility of measurements of upper airway area by acousticreflection. J Appl Physiol 1989; 66 (6): 2901-5. https://doi.org.0.1152/jappl.1989.66.6.2901

  25. Kamal I. Test-retest validity of acoustic pharyngometry measurements. Otolaryngol-Head Neck Surg 2004;130 (2): 223-8. https://doi.org.10.1016/j.otohns.2003.08.024

  26. Molfenter SM. The reliability of oral and pharyngeal dimensions captured with acoustic pharyngometry.Dysphagia 2016; 31 (4): 555-9. https://doi.org.10.1007/s00455-016-9713

  27. Hatzakis GE, Karsan N, Cook J, Schloss M, Davis GM. Acoustic reflectance of pharyngeal structures inchildren. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2003; 67 (4): 373-81. https://doi.org.10.1016/s0165-5876(02)00404-4

  28. Hansen C, Sonnesen L. Reliability of acoustic pharyngometry and rhinometry examination in children andadolescents. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2022; 13 (3): 1-8. https://doi.org.10.5037/jomr.2022.13304

  29. Leboulanger N, Louis B, Fauroux B. The acoustic reflection method for the assessment of paediatric upperairways. Paediatr Respir Rev 2014; 15 (1): 38-41. https://doi.org.10.1016/j.prrv.2013.04.001




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com