Dataset Information

Comparative effects of snoring sound between two minimally invasive surgeries in the treatment of snoring: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Minimally invasive surgeries of the soft palate have emerged as a less-invasive treatment for habitual snoring. To date, there is only limited information available comparing the effects of snoring sound between different minimally invasive surgeries in the treatment of habitual snoring.

Objective

To compare the efficacy of palatal implant and radiofrequency surgery, in the reduction of snoring through subjective evaluation of snoring and objective snoring sound analysis.

Patients and method

Thirty patients with habitual snoring due to palatal obstruction (apnea-hypopnea index ?15, body max index ?30) were prospectively enrolled and randomized to undergo a single session of palatal implant or temperature-controlled radiofrequency surgery of the soft palate under local anesthesia. Snoring was primarily evaluated by the patient with a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS) at baseline and at a 3-month follow-up visit and the change in VAS was the primary outcome. Moreover, life qualities, measured by snore outcomes survey, and full-night snoring sounds, analyzed by a sound analytic program (Snore Map), were also investigated at the same time.

Results

Twenty-eight patients completed the study; 14 received palatal implant surgery and 14 underwent radiofrequency surgery. The VAS and snore outcomes survey scores were significantly improved in both groups. However, the good response (postoperative VAS ?3 or postoperative VAS ?5 plus snore outcomes survey score ?60) rate of the palatal implant group was significantly higher than that of the radiofrequency group (79% vs. 29%, P?=?0.021). The maximal loudness of low-frequency (40-300 Hz) snores was reduced significantly in the palatal implant group. In addition, the snoring index was significantly reduced in the radiofrequency group.

Conclusions

Both palatal implants and a single-stage radiofrequency surgery improve subjective snoring outcomes, but palatal implants have a greater effect on most measures of subjective and objective snoring. Multi-stage radiofrequency surgery was not tested.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01955083.

SUBMITTER: Lee LA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4016275 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative effects of snoring sound between two minimally invasive surgeries in the treatment of snoring: a randomized controlled trial.

Lee Li-Ang LA Yu Jen-Fang JF Lo Yu-Lun YL Chen Ning-Hung NH Fang Tuan-Jen TJ Huang Chung-Guei CG Cheng Wen-Nuan WN Li Hsueh-Yu HY

PloS one 20140509 5

<h4>Background</h4>Minimally invasive surgeries of the soft palate have emerged as a less-invasive treatment for habitual snoring. To date, there is only limited information available comparing the effects of snoring sound between different minimally invasive surgeries in the treatment of habitual snoring.<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the efficacy of palatal implant and radiofrequency surgery, in the reduction of snoring through subjective evaluation of snoring and objective snoring sound analysi ...[more]

PMID: 24816691

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFor patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma or cancer of the gastroesophageal junction, radical esophagectomy with 2-field lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of the multimodality treatment with curative intent. Both conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) were shown to be superior compared to open transthoracic esophagectomy considering postoperative complications. However, no randomized comparison exists between MIE and RAMIE in the Western World for patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma.MethodsThis is an investigator-initiated and investigator-driven multicenter randomized controlled parallel-group superiority trial. All adult patients (age ≥ 18 and ≤ 90 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0-3, M0) esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction and with European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 will be assessed for eligibility and included after obtaining informed consent. Patients (n = 218) with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction are randomized to either RAMIE (n = 109) or MIE (n = 109). The primary outcome of this study is the total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes specified per lymph node station.ConclusionThis is the first randomized controlled trial designed to compare RAMIE to MIE as surgical treatment for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction in the Western World. The hypothesis of the proposed study is that RAMIE will result in a higher abdominal and mediastinal lymph node yield specified per station compared to conventional MIE. Short-term results and the primary endpoint (total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes per lymph node station) will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient within this trial.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04306458 . Registered 13th March 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04306458; Date of first enrolment 18.01.2021; Target sample size 218; Recruitment status: Recruiting; Protocol version 2; Issue date 10.03.2020; Rev. 02.02.2021; Authors ET, PCvdS, PPG.

Project description:BackgroundAnatomically, the esophagus is located within the mediastinum, and thus it potentially a transcervical approach for esophagectomy, which avoids thoracic manipulation, could be an alternative to transthoracic esophagectomy for the surgical resection of esophageal cancer. A modified transcervical minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), laparo-gastroscopic esophagectomy (LGE), was recently introduced using an integrated gastroscope to mobilize the esophagus. As such, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is necessary to validate its value compared to transthoracic MIE, which carries a high risk of morbidity due to thoracic manipulation.MethodsThis prospective study plans to enroll patients with resectable esophageal cancer with a pathological diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma patients over a 2-year period. Patients will be randomly assigned to one of 2 groups in a 1:1 ratio: patients in Group A will radical LGE and patients in Group B will receive radical laparo-thoracoscopic esophagectomy (LTE). Perioperative and long-term outcomes of all patients will be collected and analyzed. The primary end point will be perioperative morbidity, and the secondary end points will include 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) and quality of life (QOL) score. Other data that will be collected and compared between the groups include the number of harvested lymph nodes, surgical Apgar score, and duration of operation.DiscussionTransthoracic MIE is the most widely accepted approach for treating esophageal cancer. In this RCT, transthoracic MIE and transcervical LGE will be compared with respect to oncological and surgical outcomes (oncological none-inferiority and surgical superiority).Trial registrationThis study is registered in Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200055312) with the name of 'Transcervical versus Transthoracic Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Randomized and Controlled Trial' on January 6, 2022. Details can be found on http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=133224.

Project description:BackgroundAnticoagulant therapy during pregnancy is widely used due to the increasing awareness of maternal hypercoagulability. Few studies have reported the use of minimally invasive spinal anesthesia in these parturients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of minimally invasive spinal anesthesia in parturients with anticoagulation therapy undergoing cesarean section.MethodsThis was a randomized, controlled study conducted in 239 parturients using anticoagulants and undergoing selective cesarean section. 37 parturients withdrew, and finally parturients received spinal anesthesia using 27gauge pen type fine spinal needles (experimental group, n = 110) and 22gauge traditional spinal needles (control group, n = 92). The primary efficacy outcomes included low back pain (LBP) and postdural puncture headache (PDPH) after delivery. Secondary efficacy outcomes included visual analogue scale during subarachnoid puncture (VASdural), difference between visual analogue scale (VAS) during peripheral venipuncture and VASdural (∆VAS), VAS of back puncture point 24, 48 and 72 h after operation (VASdural-24 h, VASdural-48 h and VASdural-72 h, respectively), maternal satisfaction and hospitalization stay.ResultsNo parturient had PDPH and was suspected with spinal or intracranial haematoma in two groups. There was no significant difference in VASlbp-24 h, VASlbp-48 h and VASlbp-72 h (P = 0.056; P = 0.813; P = 0.189, respectively) between two groups. In experimental group, VASdural (P = 0.017), ∆VAS (P = 0.001) and VASdural-24 h (P < 0.0001) were lower, whereas maternal satisfaction was higher (P = 0.046). There was no significant difference in VASdural-48 h, VASdural-72 h, urination function, strength recovery and hospitalization stay (P = 0.069; P = 0.667; P = 0.105; P = 0.133; P = 0.754, respectively) between the two groups.ConclusionsMinimally invasive spinal anesthesia provided lower VASdural, VASdrual-24 h and a higher maternal satisfaction. Hence, it is considered as a safe, reliable and reasonable option for cesarean section parturients during maternal anticoagulation therapy with normal platelet count and coagulation time.Trial registrationThis study was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov at November 11th, 2016 ( NCT02987192 ).

Project description:BackgroundMany training curricula were introduced to deal with the challenges that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) presents to the surgeon. Situational awareness (SA) is the ability to process information effectively. It depends on general cognitive abilities and can be divided into three steps: perceiving cues, linking cues to knowledge and understanding their relevance, and predicting possible outcomes. Good SA is crucial to predict and avoid complications and respond efficiently. This study aimed to introduce the concept of SA into laparoscopic training.MethodsThis is a prospective, randomized, controlled study conducted at the MIS Training Center of Heidelberg University Hospital. Video sessions showing the steps of the laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) were used for cognitive training. The intervention group trained SA with interposed questions inserted into the video clips. The identical video clips, without questions, were presented to the control group. Performance was assessed with validated scores such as the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) during LC.Results72 participants were enrolled of which 61 were included in the statistical analysis. The SA-group performed LC significantly better (OSATS-Score SA: 67.0 ± 11.5 versus control: 59.1 ± 14.0, p value = 0.034) and with less errors (error score SA: 3.5 ± 1.9 versus control: 4.7 ± 2.0, p value = 0.027). No difference in the time taken to complete the procedure was found. The benefit assessment analysis showed no difference between the groups in terms of perceived learning effect, concentration, or expediency. However, most of the control group indicated retrospectively that they believed they would have benefitted from the intervention.ConclusionThis study suggests that video-based SA training for laparoscopic novices has a positive impact on performance and error rate. SA training should thus be included as one aspect besides simulation and real cases in a multimodal curriculum to improve the efficiency of laparoscopic surgical skills training.

Project description:Laparoscopic surgery has been shown to provide important advantages in comparison with open procedures in the treatment of several malignant diseases, such as less perioperative blood loss and faster patient recovery. It also maintains similar results with regard to tumor resection margins and oncological long-term survival. In gastric cancer the role of laparoscopic surgery remains unclear. Current recommended treatment for gastric cancer consists of radical resection of the stomach, with a free margin of 5 to 6 cm from the tumor, combined with a lymphadenectomy. The extent of the lymphadenectomy is considered a marker for radicality of surgery and quality of care. Therefore, it is imperative that a novel surgical technique, such as minimally invasive total gastrectomy, should be non-inferior with regard to radicality of surgery and lymph node yield.The Surgical Techniques, Open versus Minimally invasive gastrectomy After CHemotherapy (STOMACH) study is a randomized, clinical multicenter trial. All adult patients with primary carcinoma of the stomach, in which the tumor is considered surgically resectable (T1-3, N0-1, M0) after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, are eligible for inclusion and randomization. The primary endpoint is quality of oncological resection, measured by radicality of surgery and number of retrieved lymph nodes. The pathologist is blinded towards patient allocation. Secondary outcomes include patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) regarding quality of life, postoperative complications and cost-effectiveness. Based on a non-inferiority model for lymph node yield, with an average lymph node yield of 20, a non-inferiority margin of -4 and a 90% power to detect non-inferiority, a total of 168 patients are to be included.The STOMACH trial is a prospective, multicenter, parallel randomized study to define the optimal surgical strategy in patients with proximal or central gastric cancer after neo-adjuvant therapy: the conventional 'open' approach or minimally invasive total gastrectomy.This trial was registered on 28 April 2014 at Clinicaltrials.gov with the identifier NCT02130726 .

Dataset Information

Comparative effects of snoring sound between two minimally invasive surgeries in the treatment of snoring: a randomized controlled trial.

Background

Objective

Patients and method

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Comparative effects of snoring sound between two minimally invasive surgeries in the treatment of snoring: a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets