SynthesisSleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung2026
Robotic versus non-robotic posterior midline glossectomy for obstructive sleep apnea: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeObstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a common disorder characterized by recurrent upper airway collapse, leading to intermittent hypoxia and sleep fragmentation. Posterior midline glossectomy is a widely used technique to treat tongue base obstruction typically performed as part of multilevel management. This systematic review compares the efficacy and safety of robotic versus non-robotic glossectomy techniques in OSA management.
methodsFour databases were searched through July 2024. Eligible studies included adult patients with OSA undergoing robotic or non-robotic posterior midline glossectomy, with outcomes including apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), oxygen saturation, complications, and surgical success. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan v5.4.
resultsThirty-six studies (n = 6,995 patients) were included. Both robotic and non-robotic approaches resulted in significant AHI reduction (robotic: − 25.93; non-robotic: − 24.99). Oxygen nadir improved in both groups (robotic: +5.48%; non-robotic: +8.11). ESS scores decreased in both arms (robotic: − 7.43; non-robotic: − 5.58). Overall success rates were similar (robotic: 64%; non-robotic: 57%). Major complications, particularly postoperative bleeding and edema, were more frequent with robotic surgery.
conclusionRobotic and non-robotic posterior glossectomy yield comparable improvements in OSA outcomes. Robotic techniques may offer slighlty greater symptom reduction but are associated with higher complication rates. These findings support individualized surgical planning based on anatomy, risk profile, and resource availability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.