ArticleBrain & spine2025
Less is more - Retrospective analysis of the two-incision implantation technique for hypoglossal nerve stimulation and comparison of respiratory sensing lead curves against the three-incision technique.
Article in Brain & spine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Breathing-synchronized hypoglossal-nerve stimulation is a treatment option for suitable patients with severe obstructive-sleep-apnoea. The classical implantation technique requires three incisions: submental to place the stimulating-electrode on terminal branches of the hypoglossal-nerve, sub-clavicular to place the impulse generator, and on the lateral chest-wall to place a breathing-sensor lead. A two-incision-technique has been propagated and widely adopted whereby the respiratory-sensing-lead is placed deeper to the IPG-pocket. Research question: Our department switched to the 2-incision-technique in May 2021 and we set out to compare the two methods concerning the generated respiratory-sensing-curves. Material and method: Cases operated between October 2020 and September 2022 were included. Parameters included age, gender, BMI, OR time, positioning of the detection-lead, and preoperative Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index (AHI). The generated respiratory-sensing curves were categorized by an independent expert blinded to the surgical-technique regarding conduciveness to optimal stimulation. Result: 21 patients were included. 5 were operated with the 3-incision-technique. Women were underrepresented. There were no further significant differences in patient characteristics. The expert-opinion on the respiratory-sensing-curves did not vary between groups. Mean OR-time was marginally less in the 2-incision group without being statistically significant. Conclusion: The 2-incision-technique generates respiratory-sensing curves at par with those generated with 3-incision-implants. The limited patient data collected in this analysis suggests that OR-time can be reduced using the 2-incision-technique. There were no cases of postoperative complications in our cohort. It can be postulated that a 2-incision-implant has a lower risk of infection due to the reduced wound-surface.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.