ArticleThe Laryngoscope2025
Safety of Monopolar Electrocautery Use in Patients With Implanted Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulators.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Case Report: Partial resection of lingual ectopic thyroid using an electrohook under laryngoscopic guidance.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Safety of Monopolar Electrocautery Use in Patients With Implanted Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulators.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMonopolar electrocautery (MPE) is traditionally avoided in patients with implanted hardware due to concerns about electromagnetic interference. While MPE use in cardiac, spinal cord, and cochlear implants has been documented, no study exists on its impact on hypoglossal nerve stimulators (HGNS). Here we evaluate the impact of MPE use in patients with HGNS implants.
methodsThis is a retrospective review of 85 consecutive HGNS cases at a tertiary academic center from October 2012 to October 2023. Post-HGNS implantation surgical procedures were categorized into surgeries with MPE (n = 38) and without MPE (n = 47). Data on demographics, polysomnography, and device outcomes were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and chi-squared tests.
resultsOf the 85 patients, 38 (45%) underwent MPE-involved surgeries, with 7 (18%) head and neck, 20 (53%) torso and upper extremities, and 11 (29%) below the torso. No significant difference in outcomes was found between surgeries above or below the torso (p = 0.478). Up to 1 month post-MPE exposure, no device failure or malfunction occurred. Among 11 patients with sleep studies before and after MPE exposure, there was no significant difference in AHI (p = 1.00).
conclusionThis is the first study to assess the safety of MPE in patients with HGNS implants, suggesting that MPE use outside the immediate vicinity of HGNS implants is safe and does not compromise HGNS function. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3:
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.