OSA Paper Podcast

About OSA Paper Podcast

Every day, one new paper on obstructive sleep apnea surgery: hypoglossal nerve stimulation, palate surgery including barbed reposition pharyngoplasty, tongue base, skeletal and nasal procedures, patient selection and comparators. Every episode summarizes the paper, walks through it as a teaching round, places it against a 440-paper evidence library, and ends with whether it should change practice. Episodes are written and narrated by an AI system working from the full text of each paper and the host's curated library of digests, under rules set by the host. They are reviewed for teaching, not for patient care. Nothing here is medical advice. Episode guide and subscribe links: https://www.sleepapneaimplant.org/podcast Produced by Ryan Nord, MD (VCU Health). Disclosures: consultant to AvivoMed; previously a consultant to Inspire Medical Systems (ended 2025) and Medtronic. No company funds or reviews this podcast.

Publisher

Ryan Nord, MD

Category

health & fitness

Language

en

Explicit

No

First episode

6 Oct 2026

Latest episode

25 Oct 2026

Latest episodes

18 episodes in the feed.

1. 

   25 Oct 2026

   Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulation and Hypoxic Burden in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Secondary Analysis of the STAR Trial

   The take-home point is the headline one more time. In a cohort without a control arm, hypoglossal nerve stimulation was associated with a median reduction in hypoxic burden of about three quarters, seventy-six point six percent, at one year. What does it add to the decision? It doesn't help pick candidates. Baseline burden didn't separate responders from nonresponders in the Op de Beeck work, so candidacy still rests on the usual criteria. What it adds is counseling and follow-up. A fair line for patients: in a STAR analysis of one hundred and eight patients, the typical patient's oxygen burden fell about three quarters at a year. Then say the caveats out loud. It was an older device, no heart events were measured, and the gains depended on nightly use. Don't tell a patient that Inspire protects the heart. For the AHI nonresponder, it adds nuance. Dr. Nord's practice treats drug-induced sleep endoscopy, DISE, as a good tool once awake endoscopy and reprogramming have failed. Before that conversation, this paper is a reason to look at the oxygen data too, because a partial responder may still be gaining. Hold that loosely. Van Loo's nonresponders showed no significant gain, and there's no validated hypoxic burden cutoff. Weight belongs in the same conversation. These oxygen gains came with little change in body mass index. For patients, two figures help. In a twenty twenty-four Malhotra meta-regression in Sleep Medicine, funded by Lilly, a ten percent drop in body mass index matched about a thirty-six percent drop in the AHI. And in the ADHERE registry, from Heiser's group in the European Respiratory Journal in twenty nineteen, each one-point rise in body mass index meant about nine percent lower odds of Inspire success. Still, weight loss, including glucagon-like peptide one drugs, sits alongside Inspire as part of multimodal treatment, often both together. Many Inspire patients are already on these drugs or will become candidates for them. How confident should we be? Fairly confident in the direction, less so in the size. What would move it is a controlled study, current hardware and hard outcomes. The authors note the STAR device has since been modified, and there are no published Inspire V outcomes yet. Again, that's Azarbarzin's group at Brigham and Women's Hospital, in JAMA Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, twenty twenty-six. What's your one takeaway from this paper?

2. 

   24 Oct 2026

   Proximal Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulation for Obstructive Sleep Apnea in the OSPREY Study: A Randomized Controlled Trial

   Here is the take-home point. Nearly six in ten treated patients met the response bar at seven months, against roughly one in seven with the device switched off. That is a real, randomized effect, for an investigational proximal device made by LivaNova. For a high-volume Inspire implanter, as in Dr. Nord's practice, the decision this paper touches is counseling. Picture a patient who cannot tolerate positive airway pressure and asks about every implant option. So what does the paper add? First, that patient can now be told that a different, investigational implant has a randomized trial behind it. Name the device. Say it is not approved in the United States. Explain that the control was a switched-off device, not a sham. Second, never quote fifty-eight percent as an Inspire number. It comes from a different device, a different stimulation site on the nerve, and a different selection pathway. Third, it sharpens expectation setting for any stimulator. Residual mild disease is common, and about four in ten treated patients did not meet the bar. Fourth, there is an easy number to quote about weight. Everyone enrolled had a body mass index of thirty-five or lower, and the average was about thirty-one. These results apply to that range. Fifth, only about one in ten consenting patients reached randomization. Strict selection sits behind this trial's numbers. Then there is the patient turned down for Inspire because of complete concentric collapse. This trial does not support telling that patient a proximal device would work, because collapse pattern was never assessed. The Inspire candidacy pathway, including DISE, still applies. Confidence is high that, in this selected group, stimulation beats a switched-off device at seven months. It is lower for durability, collapse pattern and hard outcomes. Several things would move it: outcomes by collapse pattern, a head-to-head comparison with Inspire, longer controlled follow-up, and a United States approval decision. Until then, this is one to watch. What's your one takeaway from this paper?

3. 

   21 Oct 2026

   Systematic Review on the Safety of Outpatient Upper Airway Surgery for Obstructive Sleep Apnea Patients in Ambulatory Surgical Centers - Journal of otolaryngology

   The take-home point. In Dr. Nord's practice, airway-surgery patients like the ones in this review are kept for twenty-three-hour observation, and that includes B-R-P. The decision this paper touches is whether B-R-P patients could move to same-day discharge from a surgery center. This review does not supply the evidence for that move. Its patients were mostly classic U-triple-P patients treated in hospitals. And its headline admission rate, a little more than one in twenty, sits above the authors' own three percent bar. What it does add is useful for counseling and for teaching. Serious respiratory events after these operations cluster in the first few hours. Most early events are desaturations, and how often you find them depends on how closely you look. In at least one cohort, a higher body mass index and A-H-I were linked to higher odds of desaturation in the recovery room. For patients asking about weight, here is one figure that is easy to share. In the Rotenberg group's twenty thirteen cohort, a higher body mass index was linked to roughly two point seven times the odds of desaturating in the recovery room, though the paper does not say exactly which comparison that figure describes. Also, another included series found no such link. A second figure comes from the Shave surgery-center series. There, patients with a body mass index over forty-five were sent to the hospital instead. For residents in the operating room and clinic, the lesson is about the patient's whole course. A twenty-four-hour window captures the airway story. It misses the bleeding story, which can arrive anywhere from several days to two weeks later. On its own, this review is not the evidence that would move B-R-P patients from observation to same-day discharge. One kind of study would change that. It would be a prospective surgery-center series of modern pharyngoplasty. It would classify patients by intention and use one desaturation definition. And its thirty-day follow-up would capture readmissions at any hospital. To restate the headline one last time. Across the four studies that reported it, unplanned admission for a medical reason averaged a little more than one in twenty. That is five point four percent, above the authors' own three percent goal. What's your one takeaway from this paper?

4. 

   20 Oct 2026

   Association Between Perioperative Celecoxib, Acetaminophen, and Opioid Consumption After Palate Surgery for Obstructive Sleep Apnea

   The take-home point: this paper gives an adult, sleep-apnea-specific signal that scheduled celecoxib goes with modestly less opioid use on the first day, and it sharpens how patients are counseled. Here is why it fits. Dr. Nord performs barbed reposition pharyngoplasty, and airway-surgery patients like these are kept for twenty-three-hour observation. The first-day window in this paper lines up closely with that observation stay. The decision it affects is whether scheduled celecoxib, before and after surgery, belongs in the multimodal plan for barbed reposition pharyngoplasty. What the paper adds, in words worth remembering, is that more celecoxib went with a little less opioid. Each hundred milligrams went with about two point seven fewer morphine milligram equivalents, after adjustment. It also adds to counseling. Almost everyone still received an opioid, two hundred and five of two hundred and ten. That supports telling patients to expect some opioid on the first day, rather than promising an opioid-free recovery. Tonsillectomy went with about thirty-one more milligram equivalents. Barbed reposition pharyngoplasty is typically done with tonsillectomy, so its patients look more like the higher-need group, though carrying that figure over to barbed work is an inference. Patients with autoimmune or immunosuppressive conditions may need more, though that group was small. Two things the paper does not license. It does not show that acetaminophen fails, so it is no reason to drop it. And it does not show that celecoxib is safe for bleeding, with ketorolac's adult tonsillectomy signal a separate concern. Confidence is modest. This is an association, tangled with a change in era, in a cohort with no barbed reposition pharyngoplasty patients. What would move it is a randomized trial in barbed pharyngoplasty, with pain scores, opioid use at home through two weeks, and bleeding through thirty days. A negative trial would move it the other way. For the residents Dr. Nord teaches in the operating room and clinic, the lesson is simple. Read the units, and read the era, before you read the p value. What's your one takeaway from this paper?

5. 

   19 Oct 2026

   A Randomized Trial of Nefopam for Postoperative Pain Management in Obstructive Sleep Apnea Patients Undergoing Uvulopalatopharyngoplasty

   The take-home point. Nefopam did not lower morphine after UPPP. On the first day, patients used a median of seven milligrams with nefopam and five with placebo, both remarkably little. On top of a strong scheduled regimen, the extra drug bought nothing this trial could detect. The decision this paper informs is whether to add nefopam to a pain regimen after palate surgery. It supports the authors' advice against routine add-on use. Nefopam is not approved in the United States. So for American surgeons, the broader lesson is about adjuncts in general. An adjunct needs room to work, and a strong backbone may leave little. It also doesn't transfer to barbed reposition pharyngoplasty, or B-R-P. Dr. Nord performs B-R-P, not the classic resection UPPP with tonsillectomy studied here. The literature has no analgesia trial for B-R-P at all. So the five-to-seven-milligram figure shouldn't be quoted to a B-R-P patient as an expected recovery. Where the paper adds most is counseling. In both arms, swallowing hurt more than resting, especially in the first week. Resting pain settled within that week. Mild swallowing pain lingered, and by the second week most patients had no residual pain. That's a clear, honest script for the preoperative visit, and the Delphi's day-five-to-seven peak backs it up. On safety, no respiratory depression in fifty-one patients is reassuring, but it is far too few to relax monitoring. Airway-surgery patients like these are kept for twenty-three-hour observation in Dr. Nord's practice, and nothing in this trial argues otherwise. For residents in the operating room and clinic, this paper is a clean case for one habit. Before you believe a negative trial, check the power calculation. Confidence that nefopam adds little on top of a strong regimen in young, healthy patients: moderate. Confidence that this holds for older, heavier, higher-risk patients: low. What would move it? A larger multicenter trial, powered on realistic opioid use, that reports confidence intervals and tracks breathing through the first nights. What's your one takeaway from this paper?

6. 

   18 Oct 2026

   Predictive Factors for Surgical Outcomes and Symptom Persistence After Uvulopalatopharyngoplasty in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea

   The take-home point is about selection and counseling for palate surgery. In Dr. Nord's practice that operation is BRP, and this paper is not BRP. It used no barbs, it pooled adjunct procedures in unreported numbers, and it never assessed collapse pattern with DISE. So its odds ratios do not transfer to BRP. What it adds is a clear picture of who does well. Overall, about two in three met the success definition at three months: one hundred twenty-three of one hundred ninety-one. In Friedman stage three, it was only about one in seven: eight of fifty-nine. That sharpens the clinic conversation. A lean patient with favorable Friedman anatomy is a good palate candidate. A stage-three patient faces poor odds with palate surgery alone, and the authors themselves point toward cautious selection or multimodal treatment. Dr. Nord's practice includes Inspire, and that stage-three patient is where the discussion widens beyond the palate. Body mass index gives patients numbers they can hold onto. In the He meta-analysis, long-term response was about sixty-four percent with a body mass index under thirty. It was about forty-two percent at thirty or above. The caveat: that was classic single-level UPPP, and fewer than a quarter of patients had individual data. In this paper, each point of body mass index meant roughly a third lower odds of success, but only within a lean cohort. Dr. Nord treats weight loss, including glucagon-like peptide one drugs, as part of multimodal treatment alongside Inspire, often both rather than either one alone. Residual symptoms matter too. Satisfaction followed them closely, so in clinic, ask about snoring, unrefreshing sleep and fatigue, not just the AHI. And quote durability honestly, because early numbers like two in three tend to fall over the long term. Confidence is high in the direction: anatomy and body mass index matter. Confidence is low in the model itself, because its area under the curve has never been tested outside the patients who built it. What would move it is external validation, ideally in a BRP cohort with DISE, longer follow-up and a validated satisfaction tool. Until then, the model is one to watch. What's your one takeaway from this paper?

7. 

   17 Oct 2026

   Uvularis Muscle Strengthening Advancement in Palatopharyngeal Collapse in Selected Cases of Snoring and Obstructive Sleep Apnea - A Randomized Trial - European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology

   The take-home point: this paper adds a counseling option for a narrow group of patients, and a snoring hypothesis worth testing. It doesn't change who is offered Inspire or B-R-P. First, the headline once more. The uvularis stitch did not significantly lower the A-H-I. Palatoplasty alone finished around five and a half, and the stitch around four. That difference was not statistically significant. Quieter nights, not fewer apneas. The decision this touches is counseling one kind of patient. That patient is young, with mild positional O-S-A, small tonsils and front-to-back palatal collapse. Front-to-back palatal collapse in general is common. In the 2024 Schoustra series in Sleep and Breathing, complete front-to-back palatal collapse was the single most prevalent finding on DISE, though the patients in this trial had milder, partial collapse. That was just over half, nine hundred forty-two of one thousand seven hundred sixty-one exams. Many mild patients like these sit below the Inspire label, which starts at an A-H-I of fifteen. This trial is not Inspire evidence in any way. For that patient, it supports saying that a conservative palate suspension exists, with low morbidity reported in this one series. And because every patient here was positional, positional therapy belongs in the same conversation. Second, B-R-P. Dr. Nord performs B-R-P, and this is a different operation. It uses no barbed suture, no tonsillectomy and no lateral-wall work. It targets front-to-back collapse with small tonsils, while B-R-P is aimed at lateral or concentric collapse. So the trial doesn't make a case for adding a uvularis stitch to B-R-P. For the residents Dr. Nord teaches in the operating room and clinic, the useful question is whether a dedicated uvula step could help snoring after B-R-P. That remains untested. Third, aftercare. The Zagazig patients went home four to six hours after surgery. Dr. Nord keeps airway-surgery patients like these for twenty-three-hour observation. A tonsil-sparing series of thirty-four patients with mild disease doesn't argue against that. Fourth, weight belongs in the counseling. In the 2019 Green study, body mass index predicted response to pharyngeal surgery, expressed as an odds ratio. An odds ratio compares the odds of an outcome in one group with the odds in another. One means no difference, and below one means the outcome is less likely. It matters because it tells a patient how much their weight shifts their chances. In Green's study, each extra point of body mass index meant about eight percent lower odds of responding, an odds ratio of point nine two. The literature here doesn't give its confidence interval, so whether it crosses one can't be said. What would move this? A registered trial with blinded snoring ratings and a full intention-to-treat flow. It should include non-positional patients, a positional therapy comparison, and sleep studies past a year. Today's paper was Askar, Awad and Abou-Sharkh. "Uvularis muscle strengthening advancement in palatopharyngeal collapse in selected cases of snoring and obstructive sleep apnea: a randomized trial." European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 2026, volume two eighty-three, pages five twenty-seven to five thirty-four. What's your one takeaway from this paper?

8. 

   16 Oct 2026

   Uvulopalatopharyngoplasty Versus Expansion Sphincter Pharyngoplasty - A Single Centre Experience

   Here is the take-home point. Dr. Nord performs barbed reposition pharyngoplasty and teaches residents in the operating room and clinic. The decision this paper touches is which palate operation to choose when DISE shows lateral wall or concentric collapse at the velum, and how to counsel that patient beforehand. Hold on to the headline: E-S-P took the A-H-I from about twenty-one to about thirteen, and the muscle-sparing UPPP's fall was not statistically significant. What this adds is independent support for the principle behind B-R-P: palate surgery should reposition muscle and address the lateral wall, not just remove tissue. But this paper did not study B-R-P, and it should not be quoted as B-R-P evidence. Nothing in it argues for moving from B-R-P to E-S-P. The Neruntarat meta-analysis points to similar A-H-I results with a shorter operation for B-R-P. For counseling, the paper adds frank morbidity numbers. After E-S-P, nearly a third of patients had a minor secondary bleed, and the top step of pain medicine was needed more often. The Innsbruck patients stayed five days. In Dr. Nord's practice, airway-surgery patients like these are kept for twenty-three-hour observation, so the Innsbruck pain and bleeding figures come from a much longer stay. Patients should also hear that palate surgery usually lowers the A-H-I rather than normalizing it. In this series, the average after E-S-P was still about thirteen events an hour, and twelve weeks says nothing about durability. Weight belongs in that conversation. In this paper, a body mass index over twenty-five was linked to a worse postoperative A-H-I, though the size of that effect was not reported. An easy figure to quote comes from the Kaki study. Those patients averaged a body mass index of about thirty-two. Fewer than half met surgical success after E-S-P, twenty-four of fifty-two. The caveat is that this is a different cohort, scored with its own version of the success criteria, and it compares cohorts rather than measuring the effect of weight directly. Dr. Nord treats weight loss, including glucagon-like peptide-1, or GLP-1, drugs, as part of multimodal treatment of O-S-A, often alongside Inspire rather than instead of it. My confidence that lateral-wall operations beat tissue trimming is moderate. My confidence in the size of the E-S-P advantage here is low. What would move both is a randomized or matched comparison of B-R-P against E-S-P, with the same sleep test before and after, outcomes by DISE pattern, and follow-up past a year. What's your one takeaway from this paper?

9. 

   15 Oct 2026

   Preservation Palatopharyngoplasty for Obstructive Sleep Apnea - Predictors and Clinical Outcomes - Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery

   Here is the take-home point. The decision this paper touches is what to offer a patient with moderate to severe sleep apnea who is not a good Inspire candidate. Often that is because of large tonsils, a high body mass index, or both. Dr. Nord's practice implants Inspire at high volume and performs barbed reposition pharyngoplasty, so this is a familiar fork in the road. First, the paper sharpens counseling. In this series, the AHI was cut roughly in half, from about fifty to about twenty-three. Only about one in three was cured. Counsel with that residual AHI, not the nine-in-ten success figure, and plan with the patient for possible residual disease. Second, it adds weight to treating large tonsils first, in line with Green and TEAMUP. Consider a patient with grade three or four tonsils who sits outside the Inspire window. For that patient, a tonsillectomy-based palate operation is a reasonable first step. This is one surgeon's uncontrolled series, so treat it as support, not proof. Third, keep the Müller lateral wall finding as a hypothesis, not a selection rule. Fourth, weight. Two figures are easy to share with patients. In the Green study, each one-point rise in body mass index meant about eight percent lower odds of responding to pharyngeal surgery. That is observational data across mixed palate techniques. For Inspire, the 2020 ADHERE registry analysis from Thaler in the Laryngoscope found that each one-point rise in body mass index meant about nine percent lower odds of success. It still calls a body mass index of thirty-two "a useful guide" for implant decisions. That is registry data, not a trial. In Dr. Nord's practice, weight loss, including glucagon-like peptide one drugs, is part of multimodal treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. It often runs alongside Inspire rather than instead of it. Many Inspire patients are already on these drugs or will become candidates for them. The South Carolina authors likewise suggest weight reduction alongside palate surgery when appropriate. My confidence that the AHI roughly halves in patients like these is moderate. It is one surgeon, retrospective, uncontrolled, and six months long. What would raise it? A controlled comparison against tonsillectomy alone or against barbed reposition, and two-year results. For residents, the line to practice in clinic is simple: half the AHI, one in three cured. Today's paper was Abdelwahab and colleagues, with Nguyen as senior author: "Preservation Palatopharyngoplasty for Obstructive Sleep Apnea: Predictors and Clinical Outcomes." It appeared in Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, 2026, volume one seventy-four, issue four, pages eleven-oh-two to eleven-oh-eight. What's your one takeaway from this paper?

10. 

    14 Oct 2026

    Hypoxic Burden Reduction After Lateral Pharyngoplasty in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea - Beyond the Apnea-Hypopnea Index

    The take-home point: this paper doesn't alter who is offered palate surgery or Inspire. What it adds is a fuller way to describe results and to counsel patients afterward. Keep the headline in mind. Whole-night hypoxic burden fell to about a third of baseline. The median went from ninety-seven point one to thirty-five percent-minutes per hour. The decision it touches is how to read a sleep study labeled a Sher failure. An AHI-only label may undersell what happened to the patient's oxygen. So after palate surgery, it's reasonable to look at hypoxic burden alongside the AHI. If you do, use the same software and scoring rules before and after, or the comparison means little. And be honest with the patient. In this paper, some failures got worse, and supine burden did not significantly improve in that group. Dr. Nord's practice performs barbed reposition pharyngoplasty, which is a different operation. Lateral pharyngoplasty cuts the superior constrictor and uses no barbed suture. These numbers shouldn't be carried over to BRP. The literature has no hypoxic burden data for BRP yet. Dr. Nord's practice is also a high-volume Inspire practice. Dr. Nord has previously consulted for Inspire. For Inspire counseling, the burden data come from the first-generation STAR device and from Inspire IV, not from this palate series. There are no published outcomes yet for Inspire V. On weight, this paper's signal is small. Successes had a lower body mass index, but in only eight patients per group. In Dr. Nord's practice, weight loss is part of multimodal treatment of obstructive sleep apnea alongside Inspire, often both rather than either-or. That includes glucagon-like peptide one drugs. Many Inspire patients are already on these drugs or will become candidates for them. Confidence is moderate that burden falls after this operation in selected patients. It is low that Sher failures meaningfully benefit. Four things would move it. A controlled study. Hypoxic burden data after BRP. An analysis showing burden adds information beyond the AHI. And symptom or cardiovascular outcomes. For the residents: when you present a postoperative sleep study in clinic, bring the oxygen picture along with the AHI. That was de Aquino's group in Campinas, writing in Sleep and Breathing in 2026. What's your one takeaway from this paper?

11. 

    13 Oct 2026

    GLP-1 receptor agonists for obstructive sleep apnea: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

    The call is no change. The decision this paper touches is the counseling conversation with a patient who carries excess weight and is considering Inspire or barbed reposition pharyngoplasty, BRP. Should a weight-loss medication come first? This paper can't answer that. It has no surgical arm, no implanted patients, no drug-induced sleep endoscopy, and no palate data. What it does sharpen is the language. Quote drug-specific numbers. With tirzepatide, about twenty-two fewer events per hour than control over a year. With liraglutide, about six fewer than control. Don't quote the pooled ten. Don't promise better oxygenation or a cardiovascular benefit. Don't call these drugs a substitute for CPAP; the authors don't either. And if a patient loses substantial weight before surgery, get a new sleep study before deciding anything. One more point for residents. Dr. Nord's practice keeps airway-surgery patients like these for twenty-three-hour observation. This paper says nothing about how these drugs affect that perioperative course, so don't cite it for that. Confidence in no change is fairly high, because the paper restates existing trials rather than adding new ones. What would move it? A randomized trial of a GLP-1 drug before Inspire or BRP, measuring candidacy and surgical response. Data beyond fifty-two weeks, including what happens after stopping. And repeat drug-induced sleep endoscopy after weight loss, to see whether the collapse pattern changes. Again, that's Aljazeeri's group, "GLP-1 receptor agonists for obstructive sleep apnea: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials." Sleep and Breathing, 2026, volume thirty, article two seventy-nine. Residents, before I see you in the operating room or clinic: what's your one takeaway from this paper?

12. 

    11 Oct 2026

    Post-Operative Radiological Evaluation of a Bilateral Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulation System

    My call is no change, with one thing to watch. I'm a high-volume Inspire implanter, and I perform barbed reposition pharyngoplasty. This paper touches neither. It's Genio data from eleven patients. It has nothing on Inspire candidacy, drug-induced sleep endoscopy, or palate surgery, and I won't quote its numbers to an Inspire patient. The decisions it affects are narrower. When a patient asks about the bilateral device, my counseling stays where Patel and Heiser leave it: there is no demonstrated efficacy advantage over unilateral stimulation, and the safety record is less mature. DREAM adds device-specific failure modes, including migration. When a patient with a Genio implant needs imaging of the floor of mouth or tongue base, I now know what to expect. Plain films show the hardware cleanly. CT will carry artifact, compounded by dental work, and the authors advise reformatting in at least two planes. This is an older population where head and neck cancer workup will come up, as the authors point out, so it's worth telling the radiologist up front. What I teach residents in the operating room and clinic is this. A symmetric film is not a prediction of success, and an asymmetric one is not grounds for revision. The trigger for workup is failure to activate or failure to respond, not the picture. My confidence is high that this doesn't touch Inspire practice. It's moderate on the imaging advice, because that rests on eight CT scans in patients who all had dental implants. What would move me? A larger bilateral series with day-one and activation-visit films, linked to thresholds and twelve-month A-H-I. If a day-one film predicted migration or activation failure, that baseline would become actionable. That's the watch. The citation: Kilgue, Gehl, Abolmaali, Scholtz, Scherl and Todt. Post-operative radiological evaluation of a bilateral hypoglossal nerve stimulation system. Frontiers in Surgery, 2026, volume 13, article 1818247. Residents, what's your one takeaway? See you in the OR or clinic.

13. 

    10 Oct 2026

    Auditory Perceptions Associated With Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulation for Obstructive Sleep Apnea

    My call is change, but a narrow one, limited to counseling and to the questions we ask. There's no change to candidacy, no change to surgical technique, and no bearing on barbed reposition pharyngoplasty or other palate decisions. The first decision affected is the consent conversation for Inspire. I'll tell candidates what our own series showed: in a survey of seventy patients, about one in six noticed a new sound during stimulation, most often described as buzzing, followed by humming and electrical. Five of those twelve said it had no effect on daily life, sleep or mood. Four described a slight effect and three a moderate one. None described a severe effect, and none of the twelve stopped using the device. I'll also give the caveats: one center, a telephone survey, an unvalidated questionnaire, no hearing tests, and an unknown response rate. Preexisting tinnitus isn't a reason to exclude a patient, and it isn't grounds for absolute reassurance either. Four against eight is too small to settle it. Record tinnitus and hearing history at consent, because this study had to rely on recall to call a sound new. The second decision is at activation and titration. Ask directly: do you hear anything when the device turns on? Ask which side they sleep on. When a patient's use is slipping, ask whether noise is part of the reason. That link isn't proven, but without targeted questions this effect is easy to miss. I would not drop the C1 fibers based on this paper; the mechanism is a hypothesis. On device generation, this paper doesn't state which Inspire models were included. The proposed mechanism doesn't depend on a sensing lead, and there are no published outcomes yet for Inspire V. My confidence is low to moderate. What would move it is a multicenter prospective study that reports its response rate and includes audiometry, acoustic recordings, laterality, programming changes and longitudinal follow-up. If device sound turned out to drive nonuse or explantation, it would become a patient selection question, not just a counseling one. The citation: Belilos, Adibi, Tucker, Saeedi, Calder, Lee, and myself. "Auditory Perceptions Associated With Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulation for Obstructive Sleep Apnea." Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, twenty twenty-six, volume eleven, article e seven zero five five zero. Residents, here's my question for you: what one auditory question will you add to your next activation visit, and why that one?

14. 

    9 Oct 2026

    Ultrasonographic Tongue Base Motion Does Not Correlate With Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulation Outcomes

    My call is no change, with a watch on ultrasound as a research tool. The decision this paper touches is what I make of tongue motion after implantation. Three pieces. First, counseling. I won't tell a patient that a strong forward tongue at activation predicts a great sleep study, or that a modest one predicts failure. This paper gives me no basis for either. Second, titration. There's no support here for using visible or ultrasound motion as a titration target, or for raising amplitude just to make the tongue move more. Motion wasn't related to voltage in their standard-configuration patients. The authors caution against increasing stimulation beyond comfort. That's sensible, but it's their recommendation, not something this study measured. Third, the non-responder whose tongue moves well. This paper and Harkins both point away from "make it move more" and toward looking at the airway itself, with DISE or awake endoscopy. The authors suggest residual palatal or lateral-wall obstruction as one explanation, a hypothesis they didn't test. That's where palate surgery, including barbed reposition pharyngoplasty, enters the discussion, but I won't cite this paper as evidence for it. What doesn't change? Nothing here argues against watching for retraction and favoring protrusor branches at implantation. That rests on Heiser and Sturm, and this study didn't address it. When I teach residents in the OR, the point is narrower now: protrusion versus retraction still matters, but how far the tongue moves forward is not a demonstrated predictor. Confidence: moderate that graded ultrasound magnitude and symmetry aren't useful predictors at this level of measurement. Low on buckling, where the interval is wide. What would move me is a prospective study imaging at implantation and titration, with measured displacement, several amplitudes and configurations in each patient, paired DISE, one standardized full-night study at a fixed timepoint, and adjustment for baseline severity. Inspire V data would help too, once published. The citation: Tschopp, Janjic, Caversaccio, Borner and Tschopp. "Ultrasonographic Tongue Base Motion Does Not Correlate With Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulation Outcomes." Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, twenty twenty-six, volume eleven, issue two. Residents, next time you watch a tongue at activation, what will you actually be judging? What's your one takeaway?

15. 

    8 Oct 2026

    Exploring the Role of Drug-Induced Sleep Endoscopy in Optimizing Upper Airway Stimulation Therapy for Non-Responders

    My call is watch. The exact decision this paper touches is the implanted patient who tolerates the device, has been through the titration study and awake titration, and is still failing. The question is whether to add a DISE with stimulation on before recommending barbed reposition pharyngoplasty, an oral appliance or another operation. Kant's protocol is a reasonable, well-described option for that patient. The paper cannot show that it works better than another round of awake titration, so I'm not calling it a standard step. Candidacy doesn't change. The pre-implant DISE did not identify who would fail to couple, and no baseline factor did either. Counselling gets sharper. At this one hospital, about one implant in four, twenty-nine of one hundred and fourteen, needed this step. Of those twenty-nine, eight became responders. Always quote both denominators: eight of twenty-nine, or eight of the eighteen followed. Never call forty-four percent a rescue rate. For barbed reposition pharyngoplasty after an implant, set expectations as partial benefit, three of seven. Those are airway-surgery patients, kept for twenty-three-hour observation. Oral appliance or uvulectomy produced no responders, zero of five, though that group is tiny. And Inspire V? The electrode-configuration logic may carry over, because the stimulation lead remains. That is untested. There are no published outcomes yet for Inspire V. My confidence is low to moderate. What would move me to change practice is a comparison of DISE-guided management against repeated awake titration in matched non-responders, with every patient accounted for, follow-up to twelve months, and usage hours reported. The citation: Kant E, Hardeman JA, Stokroos RJ, Copper MP. Exploring the role of drug-induced sleep endoscopy in optimizing upper airway stimulation therapy for non-responders. Sleep and Breathing, 2025, volume twenty-nine, article two eighty-five. Residents, here's my question. When the tongue moves but the palate doesn't follow, what is your next step, and what number would you quote to the patient? What's your one takeaway?

16. 

    7 Oct 2026

    Oropharyngeal Lateral Wall Collapse on Drug-Induced Sleep Endoscopy as a Predictor of Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulation Response in Obstructive Sleep Apnoea-A Systematic Review

    So, what does this systematic review mean for our clinical practice? In terms of an explicit call: watch. There is no change to our implant candidacy gate, but we must maintain a close watch on emerging trials of concurrent pharyngeal reconstruction. Let us break down the exact decisions affected in clinic and the operating room. First, candidate counseling. When I perform drug-induced sleep endoscopy on an Inspire candidate and observe complete oropharyngeal lateral wall collapse, I do not deny them surgery. Complete concentric collapse at the soft palate remains our only absolute anatomical exclusion. However, I change the conversation. I tell the patient directly: if your lateral walls remained open, your expected chance of surgical success would be roughly seventy-five to eighty-five percent. With complete side-wall collapse, your expected chance of success drops by about fifteen to twenty percentage points, down to roughly fifty-eight to sixty-seven percent. But two out of three patients with this pattern still achieve success, your nightly device usage is expected to be just as high, and your stimulation voltage requirements are identical. Second, risk stratification by body mass index. When I see complete lateral wall collapse, I look immediately at the patient's body mass index. If their body mass index is twenty-eight or twenty-nine, I am very comfortable proceeding; data from Vena and Huyett show their response rate will likely stay near seventy percent. If their body mass index is thirty-two or thirty-three, or pushing into the newly expanded thirty-five to forty range, I have a much more sobering discussion. I explain that adiposity and lateral wall collapse act synergistically to cut response rates in half, and I make weight loss and lifestyle modification an active, mandatory part of our preoperative and postoperative plan. Third, our surgical technique. Classic U-triple-P is historical context; that is not what we do. In our practice, when we need to reconstruct the pharynx, we perform barbed reposition pharyngoplasty, or B-R-P. As you have seen me do in the operating room, B-R-P suspends and repositions the lateral pharyngeal walls anteriorly and laterally to the pterygomandibular raphe using knotless barbed sutures. When you see Huyett's combination tonsillectomy data showing an eighty-five percent A-H-I reduction but a six point seven percent return to the operating room for hemorrhage, that should give you pause. Traditional cold or electrocautery tonsillectomy leaves a raw, open granulating muscle bed in an adult sleep apnea patient. If we decide to address the lateral walls surgically alongside neurostimulation, B-R-P allows us to stabilize the lateral muscular sleeve and re-approximate mucosal pillars, which provides structural lateral wall tension while mitigating the catastrophic bleeding risks of exposed muscular beds. We do not routine-order concurrent tonsillectomy on every lateral wall patient today, but in patients with prominent tonsils and complete lateral collapse, concurrent B-R-P is the technique we are watching and evaluating. Fourth, perioperative orders. Remember our owner ruling: patients admitted for a twenty-three-hour observation stay must always be managed and documented as a twenty-three-hour observation stay. Never refer to these patients as outpatient. If we perform an Inspire implant combined with pharyngeal surgery like B-R-P in a complete lateral wall patient, they are at higher risk for airway swelling and pain. They stay on our twenty-three-hour observation pathway, receive scheduled multimodal non-opioid analgesia, and are monitored closely overnight. Fifth, postoperative management. When these patients return at three months, remember that a titration sleep study will

17. 

    6 Oct 2026

    Edema and Subjective Discomfort After Barbed Stayed Bridge Pharyngoplasty (BSBP)

    My practice call for this paper is watch. This paper does not change my primary surgical technique today, but it provides a compelling concept that I will watch closely as comparative data emerges. Here is why. In my practice, barbed reposition pharyngoplasty is the primary palate procedure I perform. It is a fantastic tool, especially for patients with significant lateral pharyngeal wall collapse or complete concentric collapse at the velum. But the classic technique, which involves dissecting the supratonsillar fat pad and transecting the lower palatopharyngeus, is reproducible and provides robust lateral anchoring. While the idea of sparing the muscle bundle and creating a cable-stayed suspension is physiologically appealing, an uncontrolled thirty-patient series without long-term follow-up or post-operative sleep endoscopy is not enough evidence to abandon an established, proven technique. However, this paper does directly influence several aspects of patient care in my clinic. First, it sharpens my patient counseling. When I talk to patients preparing for a barbed pharyngoplasty, I can now give them very specific recovery timelines grounded in prospectively validated scales. I tell them that their palatal swelling and pain will peak in the first twelve to twenty-four hours, but should improve dramatically by forty-eight hours. Most importantly, I counsel every patient that there is roughly a ten to sixteen percent chance that a small tip of the barbed suture will poke through the mucosal surface around two to four weeks postoperatively. I explain in advance that if they feel a scratchy sensation or foreign body when swallowing, it is not an infection or a surgical failure; it is simply a suture barb that we can trim painlessly with scissors at their postoperative visit in under thirty seconds. Second, it reinforces my perioperative medical management. The dramatic clearance of edema and low pain scores in this Italian cohort highlight the potent anti-inflammatory benefit of short-course systemic corticosteroids. In my outpatient practice, where patients go home the same day rather than staying forty-eight hours in a hospital bed, providing a short perioperative steroid taper alongside scheduled non-opioid analgesics helps blunt that initial twelve-to-twenty-four-hour inflammatory peak and keeps rescue opioid use to a minimum. Third, regarding surgical candidacy and device selection: this paper reinforces the phenotypic sweet spot for pharyngoplasty versus hypoglossal nerve stimulation. In a patient with a body mass index of twenty-six and isolated lateral oropharyngeal collapse, barbed pharyngoplasty is an outstanding single-stage solution. Conversely, if a patient is being evaluated for Inspire, remember that severe lateral wall collapse halves the odds of response to neurostimulation. In patients who present with multi-level or concentric velar collapse, techniques like B-R-P or this stayed-bridge modification serve an essential role, either as definitive treatment or as a preliminary stage to stabilize the lateral walls before placing a nerve stimulator. What evidence would move my confidence to actually change my surgical dissection? I would need to see a prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing classic B-R-P against this stayed bridge technique, using identical perioperative analgesic and steroid regimens, with blinded scoring of postoperative pain, objective swallowing testing, and polysomnography out to at least one year. Until then, classic B-R-P remains my standard of care. The citation for today's paper is Pace, Iannella, Maniaci, and colleagues, "Edema and Subjective Discomfort After Barbed Stayed Bridge Pharyngoplasty," published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine, volume fourteen, twenty-twenty

18. 

    6 Oct 2026

    Consensus Statements Among European Sleep Surgery Experts on Tongue, Hypopharynx, and Supraglottis Associated With Snoring and Obstructive Sleep Apnea - Part 1 - Evaluation and Decision Making

    What is the bottom line for my clinical practice? My explicit call on this paper is watch, accompanied by immediate operational reinforcement of our existing surgical protocols. This paper does not require an immediate change in operative technique because it represents expert consensus on diagnostic workup and decision-making rather than a comparative trial. However, it provides robust peer-reviewed support for four clinical decisions in our practice. First, regarding Inspire hypoglossal nerve stimulation candidacy: this consensus strongly supports our staging algorithm. When an adult presents with severe tongue base collapse on sleep endoscopy but also carries grade three or four palatine tonsils, statement twenty-one provides unanimous consensus backing to perform tonsillectomy and palate expansion first. We do not implant a neurostimulator through obstructing palatine tonsils. During pre-implant sleep endoscopy, we must also evaluate the supraglottic phenotypes detailed here. If you identify primary trapdoor or floppy epiglottic collapse folding over the laryngeal inlet, unilateral hypoglossal nerve stimulation alone may fail to recruit the epiglottis if the lingual surface is not directly tethered to the advancing tongue base. Identifying that phenotype preoperatively allows you to counsel the patient on potential concurrent or staged epiglottopexy. Second, regarding barbed reposition pharyngoplasty: this paper reinforces our sequencing principles. Ryan performs barbed reposition pharyngoplasty as his primary palatal procedure, providing anterolateral suspension of the lateral pharyngeal walls without tissue excision. Statement seventeen establishes unanimous agreement that when lower airway collapse is suspected to be secondary to upstream flow limitation, the palate and lateral walls should be treated first. Stabilizing the velum with barbed reposition pharyngoplasty frequently relieves downstream negative suction pressures, converting what appeared to be severe hypopharyngeal collapse into a stable airway. Third, regarding perioperative care: statement nine in the history section highlights that a history of nocturnal choking, stridor, or continuous positive airway pressure intolerance specifically driven by choking sensations reached eighty-three to ninety-two percent consensus as an indicator of supraglottic obstruction. When a patient reports that history, we treat them as high risk for dynamic laryngeal collapse, communicating directly with anesthesia for post-extubation precautions and maintaining continuous overnight oximetry. Fourth, regarding surgical failure and follow-up: when a patient presents with persistent moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea after prior pharyngoplasty, statement five of the sleep endoscopy section gives us unanimous consensus backing to mandate a repeat drug-induced sleep endoscopy before offering secondary surgery. We do not guess at the failure mechanism from the clinic chair. A repeat sleep endoscopy is required to differentiate residual lateral wall collapse from persistent tongue base collapse, determining whether the patient needs hypoglossal nerve stimulation or skeletal surgery. What evidence would move this call from watch to a definitive change in practice? We would need prospective cohort studies or clinical trials evaluating outcomes of staged versus synchronous palate and tongue surgery, along with validated reliability data demonstrating that classifying epiglottic collapse into trapdoor, floppy, or omega phenotypes improves surgical cure rates. For your reference, the complete citation is: Olszewska, De Vito, Baptista, Delakorda, Heiser, Cheong, Plaza, Vanderveken, Perez-Martin, Kotecha, Maurer, and Vicini. Consensus Statements Among European Sleep Surgery Expert

Contact OSA Paper Podcast

Guest appearances

Does not typically book guests

Based on episode analysis; this does not confirm that the show is currently accepting guests.