ReviewCureus2026
Two vs. Three Incisions for Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulator Implantation to Treat Sleep Apnea: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is common among adults in the United States. Hypoglossal nerve stimulation (HNS) is a novel surgical alternative for OSA patients who are nonadherent to first-line treatments. Our systematic review evaluated the surgical and device outcomes of the traditional three-incision versus the newer, less-invasive two-incision HNS implantation technique. Four studies were included based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two studies demonstrated a significant reduction in operative time from three-incision to two-incision (128.7 to 86.6 minutes and 143.3 to 129.4 minutes, respectively). Two studies reported better sleep waveform quality and non-inferior sleep quality index scores, and one study showed fewer follow-up corrective surgeries with the two-incision group (0% vs. 5.4%; p=0.048). Across most studies, postoperative complications were low. The sleep quality improved with both techniques without statistical significance. Based on limited evidence from observational studies, the two-incision approach shortened operative time and had fewer corrective follow-up surgeries without compromising sleep quality relative to the three-incision technique.
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.