Is the role of UPPP in nonapnoeic snorers underestimated

W. Backer,P. Heyning

1994-05-01

Abstract:As recently reported, the overall estimated prevalence of sleep related breathing disorders defined by an apnoeahypopnea score of 5 or higher, between the age of 30 to 60 yrs is 9% for women and 24% for men [1]. These frequencies are higher than generally estimated previously. We also know, from the study of HE et al. [2], that patients with the most severe forms of the disease (apnoea index >20) have increased mortality rates. The same authors also showed that treatment with nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) significantly reduces this mortality whereas other treatment modalities such as uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (UPPP) do not influence survival [2]. Despite extensive evaluation of UPPP during the last 10 years, data remain conflicting but more recent studies invite us to re-evaluate its role in the treatment of sleep related breathing disorders (SRBD). There is almost general agreement that, in the majority of patients, UPPP reduces the intensity of snoring [3]. Beside the (subjective) improvement in snoring, the outcome of UPPP has traditionally also been expressed by the resulting reduction in apnoea index (AI), patients with a 50% reduction in AI 6 weeks after surgery being considered as responders. In most studies about 50% of the patients can be classified as responders [4–7]. In severe sleep apnoea, it was, however, also demonstrated that UPPP has virtually no place. In 11 patients with severe sleep apnoea syndrome (apnoea index >35 or minimum oxygen saturation <75%) only 1 patient improved after UPPP whereas the AI in the others was unchanged and 4 of the latter developed cardiac failure [8]. Many attempts have been made to predict the outcome of the surgical procedure. Some techniques explore the upper airway in the awake patient. One of these is the Müller manoeuvre, where the patient is asked to make an inspiratory effort against a closed mouth and nose while the pharynx is being visualised through a fiberoptic endoscope. The interpretation of the results is difficult, because the degree of inspiratory effort is unknown and the contribution of pharyngeal muscle activation cannot be evaluated. Therefore direct techniques for assessing upper airway collapsibility during sleep were designed using direct monitoring of pressures in the posterior nasopharnyx, oropharynx, hypopharynx and oesophagus [9]. With these methods it became possible to determine critical collapsing pressures (Pcrit) and the site of the collapse. In almost half of the patients collapse was confined to the uvelopharyngeal or retropalatal segment [10]. However, response to UPPP is determined by the fall in Pcrit after surgery rather than by the initial preoperative level of Pcrit [11]. By using a novel endoscopic method it was demonstrated that narrowing of the passive airway often occurs at several sites. Only patients with exclusively nasopharyngeal collapse improve after UPPP [12]. Measurements of the upper airway dimensions using computed tomography (CT) have also been used in order to predict outcome of UPPP. Patients with a minimal cross-sectional area of the upper airway, less than 1.0 cm2 located 20 mm below the hard palate, were most likely to obtain a favourable effect [13]. The large scatter in the improvement in sleep disordered breathing after UPPP, the difficulties in predicting this result and the absence of any effect on survival have led to a general scepticism regarding the use of UPPP in obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) patients [14]. Recently, however, some new data about survival after UPPP have been published. In patients treated either with CPAP or UPPP and followed for 6 years, there was no difference in the long-term survival between the two treatment groups [15]. As assessed by the polysomnographic data, the severity of the apnoea syndrome before treatment was even more pronounced in the patients treated with UPPP. Another important point is the often mentioned dissociation between subjective and objective improvement. This was already recognised in the early studies [4], but has also been stressed by many others [16–18]. In this issue of the Journal, JANSON et al. [19] demonstrate, in a large series of nonapnoeic snorers, that treatment with UPPP significantly improves many symptoms, confirming previous data obtained in a much more limited number of patients [20]. Patients treated with UPPP, compared to those treated with conservative therapy only, had significantly less snoring, less awakenings because of trouble breathing, less morning headache and increased daytime alertness 3 or 12 months postoperatively. However, this study has some limitations: the diagnosis of nonapnoeic snoring was only based on oxygen desaturation at night; there were no objective measurements during follow-up; there could have been a bias in the selection of the patients for operation. Nevertheless, there was a convincing change in most subjective assessments using a validated multiple-choice questionnaire. In a sense their results confirm previous observations in OSA patients, since in both apnoeic and nonapnoeic snorers a substantial EDITORIAL