No abstract

Objective: To develop a ventilation tube insertion simulator for training and evaluation of otorhinolaryngology residents in myringotomy with ventilating tube insertion. Methods:             Design:            Cross - Sectional Study             Setting:           Tertiary National University Hospital             Participants:   Otologists and otorhinolaryngology resident trainees A simulation tool for myringotomy with ventilation tube insertion was fabricated using silicone sealant, aluminum tube, rubber ball, plaster of paris and plastic sheet, and pretested by our expert panel. Residents were then evaluated using an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) checklist while performing the procedure using the same model. Three trials were given, and OSCE scores were obtained, for each resident. Result: The pinna, ear canal, tympanic membrane, malleus handle were deemed realistic by the expert panel. Residents performed the procedure at an average of 87 seconds. Average OSCE score for all residents was 17.17, with senior residents having a higher average score (18.3) than junior residents (16.6). However, this was not statistically significant (2 tailed t-value, significance level 0.05 = -1.27, p = .227). The most common cause of trial failure was dropping of the tube in the middle ear, while the most common error made was using more than 2 attempts at performing the incision. Conclusion:  This simulation platform may be a valuable tool to use in educating and developing skills and proper technique of myringotomy with ventilation tube insertion. It is reproducible, affordable, realistic, sturdy and versatile in its applications. Residents who show adequate dexterity and consistency during simulation may eventually be allowed to perform the procedure on patients and provide feedback regarding the usefulness of the simulation. Keywords: otitis media with effusion, middle ear ventilation, tympanic membrane, models, educational, simulation training, patient simulation

Objective. To determine the diagnostic accuracy of self-collected snorted and spit saliva in detecting COVID-19 using RT-PCR (ssRT-PCR) and lateral flow antigen test (ssLFA) versus nasopharyngeal swab RT-PCR (npRT-PCR). Methods. One hundred ninety-seven symptomatic subjects for COVID-19 testing in a tertiary hospital underwent snort-spit saliva self-collection for RT-PCR and antigen testing and nasopharyngeal swab for RT-PCR as reference. Positivity rates, agreement, sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios were estimated. Results. Estimated prevalence of COVID-19 using npRT-PCR was 9% (exact 95% CI of 5.5% - 14.1%). A higher positivity rate of 13% in the ssRT-PCR assay suggested possible higher viral RNA in the snort-spit samples. There was 92.9% agreement between ssRT-PCR and npRT-PCR (exact 95% CI of 88.4% to 96.1%; Cohen’s Kappa of 0.6435). If npRT-PCR will be assumed as reference standard, the estimated Sensitivity was 83.3% (exact 95% CI of 60.8% to 94.2%), Specificity 93.9% (exact 95% CI of 89.3% to 96.5%), Positive predictive value of 57.7% (exact 95% CI of 38.9% to 74.5%), Negative predictive value of 98.2% (exact 95% CI of 95% to 99.4%), positive likelihood ratio of 3.65 (95% CI of 7.37 to 24.9), negative likelihood ratio of 0.178 (95% CI of 0.063 to 0.499). There was 84.84% agreement (95% exact CI of 79.1% to 89.5%; Cohen’s Kappa of 0.2356) between ssLFAvs npRT-PCR, sensitivity of 38.9% (exact 95% CI of 20.3% to 61.4%), specificity of 89.4% (exact 95% CI of 84.1% to 93.1%), PPV of 26.9% (95% CI of 13.7% to 46.1%), NPV of 93.6% (exact 95% CI of 88.8% to 96.4%), LR+ of 3.67 (95% CI of 1.79 - 7.51), LR – of 0.68 (95% CI of 0.47 - 0.99). Conclusion. Our data showed that snort-spit saliva RT-PCR testing had acceptable diagnostic performance characteristics and can potentially be used as an alternative to the standard nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swab RT-PCR test for COVID-19 in certain situations. However, our data also showed that snort-spit saliva antigen testing using lateral flow assay did not offer acceptable performance.