Abstract
Uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (UPPP) is still one of the most frequently performed procedures for snoring and obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) in adults, with unsatisfactory results. In the era of the mini-invasive/conservative surgery, considering the increasing attention to the disregulation of the peripheral neuromuscular control of the upper airway contributing to pharyngeal collapse in OSAS, with the development of sophisticated treatments such as the neural stimulation of the upper-airway, which role should be reserved to a muscular resective procedure such as UPPP? Being aware of the uncertain results and the high postoperative morbidity of UPPP, we believe that we should re-evaluate the role of these procedures involving the resection of palatal/pharyngeal muscles and uvula.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Dear Editor,
We read with great interest the recent article from Baradaranfar et al. [1] describing the effectiveness of uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (UPPP) in treatment of patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). This paper gave us the impetus to reflect about UPPP, which is one of the most frequently performed procedures for snoring and OSAS in adults with retro-palatal obstruction, although reported results of UPPP are not brilliant [1, 2]. UPPP has a reported success rate of approximately 40–60 % for improving mild to moderate OSA [3]. Värendh et al. reported that almost 50 % of patients operated with UPPP are not satisfied with the result of the operation after 20 years, and one-third uses CPAP at the follow-up [4]. Furthermore this “resective” technique, in which the uvula, part of the soft palate and lateral pharyngeal walls are excised, is associated with long-term side-effects (velopharyngeal insufficiency, dysphagia, persistent dryness, globus sensation, voice changes, nasopharyngeal stenosis) persisting after UPPP in 58 % of the patients [2]. Due to resulting leaks and mouth dryness, UPPP is also considered as a risk factor for CPAP non-compliance.
In the era of the mini-invasive/conservative surgery, considering the increasing attention to the disregulation of the peripheral neuromuscular control of the upper airway contributing to pharyngeal collapse in OSAS [5], with the development of sophisticated treatments such as the neural stimulation of the upper-airway, which role should be reserved to a muscular resective procedure such as UPPP? Being aware of the uncertain results and the high postoperative morbidity of UPPP, are we still allowed to propose the resection of palatal/pharyngeal muscles and uvula?
The role of the excessive collapsibility of the lateral pharyngeal walls has become increasingly considered in the genesis of retropalatal OSAS [5]. Therefore the recent evolution of OSAS surgery has been focusing on the goal of obtaining the expansion and stabilization of the pharyngeal airspace through the reduction of the lateral pharyngeal walls collapsibility, rather than through the ablation of the “redundant” palato-pharyngeal soft tissues [6]. In 2012 we proposed a new surgical technique, the Barbed Roman Blinds Technique (BRBT), designed on three basic principles: the respect of the oropharyngeal fibro-muscular structures; the use of fibro-osseous holds (posterior nasal spine, hamuli of the pterygoid processes, pterygo-mandibular raphe); the application of knot-less barbed sutures to remodel the structure of the soft palate and lateral pharyngeal walls [7, 8]. The lack of bony support makes the upper airway vulnerable to collapse [6], especially during sleep: the barbed sutures, anchored to such bony holds, stiffen and remodel the soft palate and lateral pharyngeal walls, exploiting rather than resecting the surrounding muscular structures [7, 8]. The BRBT has been showing promising results and any postoperative complication was reported [8].
The upper airway, namely the soft palate and the pharyngeal walls, is a tridimensional and dynamic unit, involved in important functional roles (phonation, respiration, swallowing), and, in our opinion it should never be resected in order to treat snoring or OSAS. Further studies are needed to better understand how to manage the muscular component of upper airway in order to rehabilitate the retropalatal space in such patients.
References
Baradaranfar MH, Edalatkhah M, Dadgarnia MH, Atighechi S, Behniafard N, Mirvakili A, Halvani A, Baradaranfar Amin and Meybodi TE (2104) The effect of uvulopalatopharyngoplasty with tonsillectomy in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. doi: 10.1007/s12070-014-0735-1
Randerath WJ, Verbraecken J, Andreas S et al (2011) European Respiratory Society task force on non-CPAP therapies in sleep apnoea. Non-CPAP therapies in obstructive sleep apnoea. Eur Respir J 37:1000–1028
Walker-Engström ML, Tegelberg A, Wilhelmsson B et al (2002) 4-year follow-up of treatment with dental appliance or uvulopalatopharyngoplasty in patients with obstructive sleep apnea: a randomized study. Chest 121:739–746
Värendh M, Berg S, Andersson M (2012) Long-term follow-up of patients operated with Uvulopalatopharyngoplasty from 1985 to 1991. Respir Med 106:1788–1793
Tsai YJ, Ramar K, Liang YJ et al (2013) Peripheral neuropathology of the upper airway in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Sleep Med Rev 17:161–168
Pang KP, Woodson BT (2007) Expansion sphincter pharyngoplasty: a new technique for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 137:110–114
Mantovani M, Minetti A, Torretta S, Pincherle A, Tassone G, Pignataro L (2012) The velo-uvulo-pharyngeal lift or “roman blinds” technique for treatment of snoring: a preliminary report. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 32:48–53
Mantovani M, Minetti A, Torretta S et al (2013) The “Barbed Roman Blinds” technique: a step forward. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 33:128
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mantovani, M., Rinaldi, V., Salamanca, F. et al. Should We Stop Performing Uvulopalatopharyngoplasty?. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 67 (Suppl 1), 161–162 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-014-0800-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-014-0800-9