ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Navigating Care Challenges in Elderly Patients Following Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulator Implantation.
Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Individualized Treatment Approaches for Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Older Adults: Beyond Continuous Positive Airway Pressure.Advances in geriatric medicine and research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHypoglossal nerve stimulation (HNS) "Inspire
methodsA retrospective chart review was conducted to identify patients aged 65 and above who underwent hypoglossal nerve stimulator insertion. Experiences of older patients during and after the insertion procedure were documented and compared to a younger population of patients on HNS therapy. We specifically collected information on difficulties encountered during activation or follow-up visits and compared them between the different age groups. Using this information, we identified areas to improve treatment adherence from the patients' perspectives.
resultsWe identified 43 geriatric (65 to 86 years old) patients who received the Inspire implant at a tertiary academic medical center and compared them to a younger population of 23 patients. Most common challenges noted-with a potential to impact adherence-included orofacial and lingual neuropraxia (ischemic or demyelination-induced neuropathy) at activation, cognitive dysfunction (memory problems), preexisting anxiety, and insomnia. Other difficulties that are less commonly reported but equally important to consistent and proper use of HNS included headaches, concerns of device malfunction, change in comfort levels after cardiac procedures, and general intolerance of the device. The older patient population had a statistically significant higher incidence of cognitive difficulties (30.2% vs. 4.4%) and a smaller social support system (62.8% vs. 91.3%) affecting device usage compared to the younger population. There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of other more commonly reported adverse effects such as headaches, dry mouth, and anxiety between the two age groups.
conclusionDespite several challenges faced by geriatric patients, Inspire
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.