摘要
Objective: Our study objective was to compare the anteroposterior (AP) oropharyngeal airway diameter measured using static MRI images in children with and without developmental disabilities during sedation. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis on a prospective, observational age-matched, 1:2 case-control study of children aged 3 - 10 years who were sedated for brain MRI. AP airway diameters were determined at the level of soft palate (airway_SP) and tongue (airway_T) from midline sagittal images by a single blinded radiologist. Results: Airway diameter was evaluated in 134 controls (C) and 68 cases (D). There was no difference in the overall adverse events (D: 30% C: 32.9%;p = 0.7) as well as hypoxia (D: 10%;C: 9.3%, p = 0.9). There was no significant difference in mean airway_T (D: 10.62 ± 3.48 vs. C: 10.38 ± 3.47;p = 0.64) and airway_SP diameter (D: 4.59 ± 2.36 vs. C: 5.17 ± 3.9;p = 0.14) between the two groups. There was no significant difference in airway_T and airway_SP diameters amongst those who experienced and those who did not experience hypoxia in cases. Amongst controls however, the airway_SP was smaller in those who experienced hypoxia compared to those who did not experience hypoxia. Conclusions: There was no difference in the AP airway_T and airway_SP diameter during sedation using static MRI images in children with and without developmental disabilities. Changes in airway_SP was associated with hypoxia amongst controls in our study cohort.
Objective: Our study objective was to compare the anteroposterior (AP) oropharyngeal airway diameter measured using static MRI images in children with and without developmental disabilities during sedation. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis on a prospective, observational age-matched, 1:2 case-control study of children aged 3 - 10 years who were sedated for brain MRI. AP airway diameters were determined at the level of soft palate (airway_SP) and tongue (airway_T) from midline sagittal images by a single blinded radiologist. Results: Airway diameter was evaluated in 134 controls (C) and 68 cases (D). There was no difference in the overall adverse events (D: 30% C: 32.9%;p = 0.7) as well as hypoxia (D: 10%;C: 9.3%, p = 0.9). There was no significant difference in mean airway_T (D: 10.62 ± 3.48 vs. C: 10.38 ± 3.47;p = 0.64) and airway_SP diameter (D: 4.59 ± 2.36 vs. C: 5.17 ± 3.9;p = 0.14) between the two groups. There was no significant difference in airway_T and airway_SP diameters amongst those who experienced and those who did not experience hypoxia in cases. Amongst controls however, the airway_SP was smaller in those who experienced hypoxia compared to those who did not experience hypoxia. Conclusions: There was no difference in the AP airway_T and airway_SP diameter during sedation using static MRI images in children with and without developmental disabilities. Changes in airway_SP was associated with hypoxia amongst controls in our study cohort.
