The influence of mouth opening on pharyngeal pressure loss and its underlying mechanism: A computational fluid dynamic analysis

Objective: During inspiration, mechanical energy generated from respiratory muscle produces a negative pressure gradient to fulfill enough pulmonary ventilation. The pressure loss, a surrogate for energy loss, is considered as the portion of negative pressure without converting into the kinetic energy of airflow. Mouth opening (MO) during sleep is a common symptom in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS). This study aimed to evaluate the effects of mouth opening on pharyngeal pressure loss using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation. Methods: A total of four subjects who were morphologically distinct in the pharyngeal characteristics based on Friedman tongue position (FTP) grades were selected. Upper airway computed tomography (CT) scan was performed under two conditions: Mouth closing (MC) and mouth opening, in order to reconstruct the upper airway models. computational fluid dynamics was used to simulate the flow on the two different occasions: Mouth closing and mouth opening. Results: The pharyngeal jet was the typical aerodynamic feature and its formation and development were different from mouth closing to mouth opening in subjects with different Friedman tongue position grades. For FTP I with mouth closing, a pharyngeal jet gradually formed with proximity to the velopharyngeal minimum area plane (plane(Amin)). Downstream the plane(Amin), the jet impingement on the pharyngeal wall resulted in the frictional loss associated with wall shear stress (WSS). A rapid luminal expansion led to flow separation and large recirculation region, corresponding to the interior flow loss. They all contributed to the pharyngeal total pressure loss. While for FTP I with mouth opening, the improved velopharyngeal constriction led to smoother flow and a lower total pressure loss. For FTP IV, the narrower the plane(Amin) after mouth opening, the stronger the jet formation and its impingement on the pharyngeal wall, predicting a higher frictional loss resulted from higher WSS. Besides, a longer length of the mouth opening-associated constant constrictive segment was another important morphological factor promoting frictional loss. Conclusion: For certain OSAHS patients with higher Friedman tongue position grade, mouth opening-related stronger jet formation, more jet breakdown and stronger jet flow separation might contribute to the increased pharyngeal pressure loss. It might require compensation from more inspiratory negative static pressure that would potentially increase the severity of OSAHS.