Minding the Snore

Our Review Summary

This story discussed the Pillar Procedure for snoring, which involves the insertion of three one-inch inserts into the palate to help reduce the vibration that causes snoring. The procedure is reportedly less invasive than other surgeries, reducing snoring in many patients and requiring less time for recovery with fewer complications. The journalist here notes the cost of the surgery is $2,500, however, this is followed by a patient quote that “it’s worth it”, which affects the balance of the story. There is no mention of how the cost compares to other treatments that were mentioned earlier in the article. Also, it is unclear if this is the cost for the procedure visit only; are the “antibiotics and few checkups down the road” included or not? While this story provides a decent overview of a newer treatment for snoring, there is no quantitative evidence that the Pillar Procedure is more or less effective than other surgeries for snoring. Only patient testimonials and anecdotal evidence are used to promote the Pillar Procedure, and we do not have any information on long-term follow-up. 81% of people treated reported a reduction in snoring, but we do not know if that was after 1 week, 1 month, or 1 year, etc. We are simply told “for long-term help, the Pillar procedure appears most promising.” The journalist mentions alternatives to the Pillar Procedure, including both surgical and non-surgical treatments for snoring, such as injections, dental devices, the C-PAP machine and home remedies, yet there are inappropriate statements and hyperbole to describe the alternatives, such as: “other snore remedies have similar baggage, some are downright painful” or surgery for other treatments is “exhaustive”. There is also no quantitative comparison between the effectiveness of the Pillar with these other treatments. What is also not considered here is that no treatment is also an option. Snoring is not bothersome for many people or their bedmates, therefore, interventions to treat snoring are not always necessary. The surgical procedure may be “like going to the dentist”, but this does not estimate risks of an outpatient surgical procedure. The journalist provides little data on the incidence of side effects with this surgery, only that there are no major complications reported. There is a mention of a 1% harm of extrusion, or the body rejecting the cylinders, but again, there is no context for this figure. Additionally, short-term side effects are described as a feeling of “pizza burn on roof of mouth”, but this minimizes the discomfort. Lastly, there is no disclaimer of conflict of interest, so we cannot determine from the article if Dr. Kimmelman, proponent of Pillar and the medical expert cited, has financial interest in or funding from Restore Medical, maker of the Pillar devices.