<scp>Two‐Incision</scp> Approach for Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulator Placement: A Single Institution Assessment
Emily S. Sagalow, Julianna Rodin, Leonard E. Estephan, Jarrett M. Jackson, Meghan M. Crippen, Maurits Boon, Colin Huntley
Abstract
OBJECTIVE(S): Upper airway stimulator (UAS) placement is a treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) with few complications and low morbidity. UAS placement has traditionally been performed using a three-incision approach, however, it has been implanted using a two-incision approach. This approach could significantly decrease operation time without a difference in postoperative complications, demonstrating its safety and feasibility for UAS placement. The objective was to assess operative time and complication rate in the two-incision approach for UAS placement compared to the three-incision approach. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospectively reviewed. METHODS: Patients who underwent UAS placement using the two- or three-incision approach at a single academic institution from November 2014 to June 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. The two-incision approach did not include the incision at the mid-axillary line. Main outcome measures included operation time and complication rates. RESULTS: Three-hundred forty-eight patients underwent UAS placement. The three-incision approach demonstrated an average operation time of 143.3 minutes whereas the two-incision approach averaged 129.4 minutes (P < .001). There was no significant difference in rate of postoperative complications between the two- and three-incision cohorts including pneumothorax (0% vs. 0.4%, P > .99), patient-reported discomfort (5.6% vs. 6.5%, P > .99), activity restriction (0% vs. 1.4%, P > .50), and incisional pain (0.0% vs. 1.0%, P > .99). No patients experienced incision site bleeding or infection. The two-incision approach was associated with decreased rate of revision surgery (0.0% vs. 5.4%, P = .048). CONCLUSION: The UAS two-incision approach proved to have a significantly shorter operative time without an increase in complications as compared to the three-incision approach. This approach is a safe and feasible option. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 132:1687-1691, 2022.