OBJECTIVES: Objectives of the study are 1) to test the effectiveness of somnoplasty (radiofrequency volumetric tissue reduction of the soft palate) for the control of loud, socially disruptive, snoring; 2) to test the long-term efficacy of this treatment by spouse report; and 3) to compare the effectiveness of somnoplasty with another treatment. STUDY DESIGN: Twenty patients with complaints of loud snoring and a respiratory disturbance index no greater than 15 respiratory events per hour with sleep-related episodes of oxygen desaturation no lower than 80% were offered an experimental treatment. Ten were treated with somnoplasty, and a comparison group of 10 matched patients used an oral appliance. All were restudied in the laboratory wearing a device programmed to count minutes of sleep during which snoring was loud, soft, or absent. METHODS: For the 10 somnoplasty patients, a spouse rating of snoring determined whether the patient received one or more treatments. Five patients had a single treatment to three sites, and five others had two such treatments. Ten patients wore an oral appliance of the tongue-retaining type (Snore X, Fremont, CA). RESULTS: Seven of the 10 somnoplasty patients met the improvement criteria set for reduced loud snoring (a spouse rating of 3 or less on a 10-point scale, and 10% or less of sleep time in loud snoring in the laboratory). The comparison group also had a significant improvement in the percentage of sleep time in loud snoring while wearing the Snore X appliance. CONCLUSION: Since there was no significant difference between the two groups in percentage of sleep time spent in loud snoring while treated, the choice of method to control snoring must be based on factors other than efficacy.
OBJECTIVES: Objectives of the study are 1) to test the effectiveness of somnoplasty (radiofrequency volumetric tissue reduction of the soft palate) for the control of loud, socially disruptive, snoring; 2) to test the long-term efficacy of this treatment by spouse report; and 3) to compare the effectiveness of somnoplasty with another treatment. STUDY DESIGN: Twenty patients with complaints of loud snoring and a respiratory disturbance index no greater than 15 respiratory events per hour with sleep-related episodes of oxygen desaturation no lower than 80% were offered an experimental treatment. Ten were treated with somnoplasty, and a comparison group of 10 matched patients used an oral appliance. All were restudied in the laboratory wearing a device programmed to count minutes of sleep during which snoring was loud, soft, or absent. METHODS: For the 10 somnoplasty patients, a spouse rating of snoring determined whether the patient received one or more treatments. Five patients had a single treatment to three sites, and five others had two such treatments. Ten patients wore an oral appliance of the tongue-retaining type (Snore X, Fremont, CA). RESULTS: Seven of the 10 somnoplasty patients met the improvement criteria set for reduced loud snoring (a spouse rating of 3 or less on a 10-point scale, and 10% or less of sleep time in loud snoring in the laboratory). The comparison group also had a significant improvement in the percentage of sleep time in loud snoring while wearing the Snore X appliance. CONCLUSION: Since there was no significant difference between the two groups in percentage of sleep time spent in loud snoring while treated, the choice of method to control snoring must be based on factors other than efficacy.