We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparison of Inhaled Drug Delivery in Patients With One- and Two-level Laryngotracheal Stenosis.
Laryngoscope 2022 May 25
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Laryngotracheal stenosis (LTS) is a functionally devastating condition with high respiratory morbidity and mortality. This preliminary study investigates airflow dynamics and stenotic drug delivery in patients with one- and two-level LTS.
STUDY DESIGN: A Computational Modeling Restropective Cohort Study.
METHODS: Computed tomography scans from seven LTS patients, five with one-level (three subglottic, two tracheal), and two with two-level (glottis + trachea, glottis + subglottis) were used to reconstruct patient-specific three-dimensional upper airway models. Airflow and orally inhaled drug particle transport were simulated using computational fluid dynamics modeling. Drug particle transport was simulated for 1-20 μm particles released into the mouth at velocities of 0 m/s, 1 m/s, 3 m/s, and 10 m/s for metered dose inhaler (MDI) and 0 m/s for dry powder inhaler (DPI) simulations. Airflow resistance and stenotic drug deposition in the patients' airway models were compared.
RESULTS: Overall, there was increased airflow resistance at stenotic sites in subjects with two-level versus one-level stenosis (0.136 Pa s/ml vs. 0.069 Pa s/ml averages). Subjects with two-level stenosis had greater particle deposition at sites of stenosis compared to subjects with one-level stenosis (average deposition 2.31% vs. 0.96%). One-level stenosis subjects, as well as one two-level stenosis subject, had the greatest deposition using MDI with a spacer (0 m/s): 2.59% and 4.34%, respectively. The second two-level stenosis subject had the greatest deposition using DPI (3.45%). Maximum deposition across all stenotic subtypes except one-level tracheal stenosis was achieved with particle sizes of 6-10 μm.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that patients with two-level LTS may experience a more constricted laryngotracheal airflow profile compared to patients with one-level LTS, which may enhance overall stenotic drug deposition.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 2022.
STUDY DESIGN: A Computational Modeling Restropective Cohort Study.
METHODS: Computed tomography scans from seven LTS patients, five with one-level (three subglottic, two tracheal), and two with two-level (glottis + trachea, glottis + subglottis) were used to reconstruct patient-specific three-dimensional upper airway models. Airflow and orally inhaled drug particle transport were simulated using computational fluid dynamics modeling. Drug particle transport was simulated for 1-20 μm particles released into the mouth at velocities of 0 m/s, 1 m/s, 3 m/s, and 10 m/s for metered dose inhaler (MDI) and 0 m/s for dry powder inhaler (DPI) simulations. Airflow resistance and stenotic drug deposition in the patients' airway models were compared.
RESULTS: Overall, there was increased airflow resistance at stenotic sites in subjects with two-level versus one-level stenosis (0.136 Pa s/ml vs. 0.069 Pa s/ml averages). Subjects with two-level stenosis had greater particle deposition at sites of stenosis compared to subjects with one-level stenosis (average deposition 2.31% vs. 0.96%). One-level stenosis subjects, as well as one two-level stenosis subject, had the greatest deposition using MDI with a spacer (0 m/s): 2.59% and 4.34%, respectively. The second two-level stenosis subject had the greatest deposition using DPI (3.45%). Maximum deposition across all stenotic subtypes except one-level tracheal stenosis was achieved with particle sizes of 6-10 μm.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that patients with two-level LTS may experience a more constricted laryngotracheal airflow profile compared to patients with one-level LTS, which may enhance overall stenotic drug deposition.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 2022.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app