Rubinstein I, McClean P A, Boucher R, Zamel N, Fredberg J J, Hoffstein V
St. Michael's Hospital, Trihospital Respiratory Service, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
J Appl Physiol (1985). 1987 Oct;63(4):1469-74. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1987.63.4.1469.
To investigate whether it is possible to simplify the methodology of measuring airway area by acoustic reflections, we measured upper airway area in 10 healthy subjects during tidal breathing according to seven different protocols. Three protocols employed custom-made bulky mouthpiece with or without nose-clips, two protocols used a scuba-diving mouthpiece and cotton balls placed in the nostrils instead of noseclips, and two protocols employed neck flexion and extension. We found no significant difference in average pharyngeal, glottic, and tracheal areas for any of the protocols except for neck flexion, which was associated with a significantly lower mean pharyngeal area. Intraindividual variabilities were comparable for all protocols, except for protocol employing the customary bulky mouthpiece and no noseclips, which consistently resulted in the most variable measurements of area for all three airway segments: pharynx, glottis, and trachea. Furthermore, we found that the protocol employing the scuba-diving mouthpiece with or without cotton balls in the nostrils resulted in the lowest number of unacceptable measurements. We conclude that measurements of airway area by acoustic reflections may be further simplified by using a scuba-diving mouthpiece without noseclips; furthermore, control of head position during measurements is not critical provided there is no obvious neck flexion.
为了研究是否有可能简化通过声学反射测量气道面积的方法，我们根据七种不同方案，在10名健康受试者潮气呼吸期间测量其上气道面积。三种方案使用定制的笨重口器，有或没有鼻夹；两种方案使用水肺潜水口器，并在鼻孔中放置棉球代替鼻夹；两种方案采用颈部屈伸。我们发现，除颈部屈伸（这与显著更低的平均咽部面积相关）外，任何方案的平均咽部、声门和气管面积均无显著差异。所有方案的个体内变异性相当，但使用传统笨重口器且无鼻夹的方案除外，该方案始终导致所有三个气道节段（咽部、声门和气管）的面积测量变异性最大。此外，我们发现，使用带或不带鼻孔棉球的水肺潜水口器的方案产生的不可接受测量次数最少。我们得出结论，使用不带鼻夹的水肺潜水口器可进一步简化通过声学反射测量气道面积的方法；此外，只要没有明显的颈部屈伸，测量期间头部位置的控制并不关键。
