Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a common illness affecting 9 % of middle age men in North America and 3 % of women [1]. It is a debilitating disorder that affects the patients primarily at night, but manifests mainly in the daytime. The snoring at night affects not only the bedpartner's sleep quality, but may also cause break down in the marriage and relationship. Tiredness, poor concentration and irritability disrupt the snorer's quality of life, work and productivity. This seemingly innocuous five-letter word, sleep, affects the patient's mood, temper, emotional state, relationships, work performance, promotions, monthly salary and his entire being/life.Successfully and holistically treating a patient with OSA would imply reversing debilitating symptoms faced by the patient, including the metabolic and oxidative stress that accompanies the disease load and disease burden. Moreover, recent evidence has shown significant discordance between the levels of AHI used to denote outcomes of therapy and real world clinical outcomes such as QOL, patient perception of disease, cardiovascular measures, disease burden and/or survival [1][2][3][4][5]. There is a mountain of evidence showing how the AHI can vary from night to night, vary from laboratory to laboratory, from various nasal thermistor to pressure transducers, and AHI can vary based on the different definitions of hypopnea used in different laboratories and software [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. The contemporary reliance on AHI as generally the only outcome measure assessed in research programs is not in line with many other aspects of medicine that are becoming patient centered as opposed to test centered [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14].According to the surgical literature on OSA treatment, Sher's success criteria of 50 % reduction in AHI and an AHI less than 20 tend to be the benchmark for success [15]. However, this archaic concept was based entirely on an arbitrary AHI number that did not stratify the patients by likelihood of surgical success. These oft-quoted criteria should be abandoned as being both insufficient and out of date. Hobson et al. recently showed in a creative study that differences even in the definition of AHI severity cut-off can greatly influence reported efficacy of surgery in patients with OSA [16]. For example, a patient with preoperative AHI of 95 who has a post-operative PSG showing an AHI of 21, would likely experience significant symptomatic clinical improvement with a huge decrease in disease burden (in terms of obesity, hypertension, cardiovascular effects) even though they are not, by definition, considered a successful surgical outcome by the numerical AHI criteria, whereas a patient with a pre-operative AHI of 35, reduced post-operatively to under 14, is considered a successful AHI outcome even though the likelihood of clinical cardiovascular, disease burden and/or QOL impact may be minimal. It is essential that OSA treatment has clinical significance rather than satisfy some numerical criteria.When considering OSA treatm...