OSA Paper Podcast

Ryan Nord, MD
  • 5.0 (1)
  • Medicine
  • Updated Daily

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.

  1. 3h ago

    Three-Year Outcomes of Proximal Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulation in OSA

    The take-home point is simple. With proximal stimulation, the median A-H-I was roughly halved, from about thirty-six to about nineteen, and it stayed there for three years. That is real durability evidence for a different device. Dr. Nord has previously consulted for Inspire. For an Inspire implanter, the decision this paper touches is counseling the patient who asks about the other nerve stimulator. Now there's a fair three-year answer. In the patients who stayed, the average gain held. The typical patient still had moderate sleep apnea. About one in four didn't finish follow-up. Use was self-reported. And the 2023 trial report described the device as investigational in the United States. The paper also adds a boundary. Don't borrow these numbers for Inspire, and don't borrow the idea that endoscopy is unnecessary. The concentric-collapse contraindication for Inspire stands. Inspire counseling should rest on Inspire data, and Inspire V has no published outcomes yet. Two counseling points carry across devices. Supine sleep remains the weak spot, so positional counseling belongs in follow-up after any hypoglossal implant. And one of the four later explants was for an M-R-I need. Ask about future imaging before any implant, and check the specific device's M-R-I conditions. Confidence in durability of the average effect is moderate. Confidence that it holds patient by patient is low. What would raise it? Three-year responder rates, objective adherence from the next-generation device, longer OSPREY follow-up, and a concentric collapse subgroup. So, one more time: halved, about thirty-six to about nineteen, and held for three years, in the patients who stayed. What's your one takeaway from this paper? Paper: Schwartz AR, Jacobowitz O, Mickelson SA, Miller MB, Oliven A, Certal V, et al. Three-Year Outcomes of Proximal Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulation in OSA. *Chest*. 2026;169(5):1357-1370. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2025.11.057 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2025.11.057

  2. 4h ago

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

    The take-home point is two facts side by side. In large cohorts, hypoxic burden predicted cardiovascular death and major cardiovascular events when the AHI did not. And on Inspire therapy, about seven in ten patients in this STAR analysis, seventy-seven of one hundred and eight, had their burden cut by more than half and ended below sixty-three percent-minutes per hour. That's good news for patients. Keep the caveats attached: no control arm, an older device, and no heart events measured. Don't tell a patient that Inspire protects the heart. What does it add to the decision? It doesn't help pick candidates. Baseline burden didn't differ between responders and nonresponders in the twenty twenty-one STAR analysis, so candidacy still rests on the usual criteria. What it adds is counseling and follow-up. A fair line for patients: in this study, about seven in ten had their oxygen burden more than halved at a year, and a week off therapy let it climb. 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 step, this paper is a reason to look at the oxygen data too, because a partial responder may still be gaining. Hold that loosely: the Antwerp nonresponders showed no significant gain, and there's no validated hypoxic burden cutoff. These gains came with little change in body mass index. One caution for counseling: STAR excluded patients with a body mass index above thirty-two, so these figures describe patients at or below that ceiling. Weight loss still sits alongside Inspire as part of multimodal treatment, often both together. 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 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: Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulation and Hypoxic Burden in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea. What's your one takeaway from this paper? Paper: Xu J, Hajipour Z, Aloia MS, de Beeck SO, Vanderveken OM, Huyett P, et al. Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulation and Hypoxic Burden in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Secondary Analysis of the STAR Trial. *JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg*. 2026;152(7):696-704. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2026.1049 https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2026.1049

  3. 3d ago

    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? Paper: Malhotra A, Schwartz AR, Lovett E, Juran N, Nguyen SA, Barrera JE, et al. Proximal Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulation for Obstructive Sleep Apnea in the OSPREY Study: A Randomized Controlled Trial. *Ann Intern Med*. 2026;179(6):812-822. doi:10.7326/ANNALS-25-04414 https://doi.org/10.7326/annals-25-04414

  4. 5d ago

    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, without proving the drug ineffective. For American surgeons, where nefopam isn't approved, the lesson is about adjuncts in general. An adjunct needs room to work, and a strong backbone may leave little. Parecoxib, the cox-two inhibitor in the Siriraj backbone, isn't approved by the Food and Drug Administration either. Among the American data, the cox-two drug studied is celecoxib, at the University of Southern California. Dr. Nord's practice 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. With American palate patients averaging about eighty milligram equivalents on the first day, counsel with a range and name the setting. 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. On safety, no respiratory depression in fifty-one patients is reassuring, but far too few to relax monitoring. Airway-surgery patients like these stay for twenty-three-hour observation, 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. In 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? Paper: Chumpathong S, Mangmeesri P, Panyamee S, Banhiran W, Uataya M. A randomized trial of nefopam for postoperative pain management in obstructive sleep apnea patients undergoing uvulopalatopharyngoplasty. *European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology*. 2026. doi:10.1007/s00405-026-10472-w https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-026-10472-w

  5. 6d ago

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

    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? Paper: Asghar M, Pang K, Asghar M, Rotenberg B. Systematic Review on the Safety of Outpatient Upper Airway Surgery for Obstructive Sleep Apnea Patients in Ambulatory Surgical Centers. *Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery*. 2025;54. doi:10.1177/19160216251379325 https://doi.org/10.1177/19160216251379325

  6. Oct 20

    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? Paper: Badash I, Wong S, Biju K, Hur K, Commesso E, Kezirian EJ. Association Between Perioperative Celecoxib, Acetaminophen, and Opioid Consumption After Palate Surgery for Obstructive Sleep Apnea. *Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery*. 2025;172(2):678–685. doi:10.1002/ohn.1069 https://doi.org/10.1002/ohn.1069

  7. Oct 18

    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? Paper: Ling X, Zheng J, Liu Q, Shi C, Fan C. Predictive factors for surgical outcomes and symptom persistence after uvulopalatopharyngoplasty in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. *Head Face Med*. 2026;22(1). doi:10.1186/s13005-026-00621-1 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-026-00621-1

  8. Oct 17

    Uvularis Muscle Strengthening Advancement in Palatopharyngeal Collapse in Selected Cases of Snoring and Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Randomized Trial

    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? Paper: Askar SM, Awad AM, Abou-Sharkh AA. Uvularis muscle strengthening advancement in palatopharyngeal collapse in selected cases of snoring and obstructive sleep apnea: a randomized trial. *Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol*. 2026;283(1):527-534. doi:10.1007/s00405-025-09844-5 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-025-09844-5

See All (19)

About

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.

Information

  • Creator
    Ryan Nord, MD
  • Years Active
    2026
  • Episodes
    19
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © 2026 Ryan Nord, MD
  • Show Website
    OSA Paper Podcast