First experiences with a new flexible single-use rhino-laryngoscope with working channel - a preliminary study

Becker, S.; Hagemann, J; O'Brian, C; Weber, V. L.; Döge, Jens; Helling, K.-H.; Ernst, BP

doi:10.1055/s-0039-1685699

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

“…Previously, the Ambu aScope 4 RhinoLaryngo SU rhinolaryngoscope system demonstrated comparable clinical metrics in performance and capability versus RU rhinolaryngoscopes. 7,9,10 The findings from this study show resident and patient experience feedback favored the SU rhinolaryngoscope versus the RU comparator specifically related to ease of use, efficiencies, and the promotion of the patients understanding of their treatment and care. Implementing SU rhinolaryngoscopes could reduce overall procedure time through the reduction or elimination of multiscope consults, while providing more teaching opportunities for residents and improving patient communication through the portable monitor system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Single‐use versus reusable rhinolaryngoscopes for inpatient otorhinolaryngology consults: Resident and patient experience

Bowen,

Macielak,

Fussell

et al. 2023

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesSingle‐use rhinolaryngoscopes were brought to market in 2019 as an alternative to traditional reusable scopes and have garnered interest across settings given portability and potential cost advantages. While single‐use was previously evaluated compared to traditional devices, the overall impact to the consult experience for both users and patients has not been captured.MethodsEighteen residents performed consults with both single‐use and reusable rhinolaryngoscope systems on alternating weeks. A five‐question cumulative survey administered across three assessment points over a 12‐week period using a five‐point rating system to rate favorability. Residents and patients also completed four‐point scale surveys following procedure(s) to capture the consult experience. Statistical analyses were performed to measure significance differences between survey responses between the two systems.ResultsSingle‐use rhinolaryngoscopes received higher overall ratings compared with reusables across each metric captured including overall consult time (4.3 vs. 2.2, p < .001), multiscope consults (4.4 vs. 3.1, p < .001), patient communication (4.6 vs. 2.1, p < .001), teaching opportunities (4.6 vs. 2.1, p < .001), and overall ease of use (4.7 vs. 2.6, p < .001). Residents rated single‐use higher than reusable after each procedure in terms of ease of use (1.07 vs. 2.68, p < .001) and visual clarity (1.27 vs. 1.89, p = .003), while patients rated single‐use higher for understanding of illness (3.9 vs. 3.1, p < .001) and understanding of treatment rationale (3.9 vs. 3.1, p < .001).ConclusionResident and patient experience feedback favored single‐use rhinolaryngoscopes compared to reusable scope technology across multiple surveyed measurables. Single‐use rhinolaryngoscopes provide a viable tool for otorhinolaryngologist and other clinicians to perform rhinolaryngoscopy consults.Level of Evidence4.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Single‐use versus reusable rhinolaryngoscopes for inpatient otorhinolaryngology consults: Resident and patient experience

Bowen,

Macielak,

Fussell

et al. 2023

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is in accordance with a previous evaluation carried out in Germany. 16 Furthermore, our qualitative data demonstrated that the single-use rhinolaryngoscope was considered to be ‘acceptable’ or ‘better’ in more than 50 per cent of responses with regard to all three parameters (image quality, ergonomics, and advancing and navigation). Moreover, 85 per cent of participants believed that the single-use rhinolaryngoscope could replace the reusable system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…14 , 15 Although there is limited published evidence to support the use of single-use rhinolaryngoscopes, it is likely that the benefits of single-use bronchoscopes will also apply to single-use rhinolaryngoscopes as the reprocessing procedure is similar. 9 , 16 However, the current lack of evidence prevents evidence-based decisions on whether the implementation of single-use rhinolaryngoscopes is clinically and economically practical.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The single-use rhinolaryngoscope: an evaluation and cost comparison

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This study investigated whether the single-use rhinolaryngoscope is clinically and economically comparable to the conventional reusable rhinolaryngoscope within a tertiary otolaryngology centre in the UK. Methods A non-blinded, prospective and single-arm evaluation was carried out over a 5-day period, in which micro-costing was used to compare single-use rhinolaryngoscopes with reusable rhinolaryngoscopes. Results Overall, 68 per cent of the investigators perceived the single-use rhinolaryngoscope to be ‘good’ or ‘very good’, while 85 per cent believed the single-use rhinolaryngoscope could replace the reusable rhinolaryngoscope (n = 59). The incremental costs of reusable rhinolaryngoscope eyepieces and videoscopes in the out-patient clinic, when compared to single-use rhinolaryngoscopes, were £30 and £11, respectively. The incremental costs of reusable rhinolaryngoscope eyepieces and videoscopes in the acute surgical assessment unit, when compared to single-use rhinolaryngoscopes, were −£4 and −£73, respectively. Conclusion The single-use rhinolaryngoscope provides a clinically comparable, and potentially cost-minimising, alternative to the reusable rhinolaryngoscope for use in the acute surgical assessment unit of our hospital.

show abstract

First experiences with a new flexible single-use rhino-laryngoscope with working channel - a preliminary study

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Single‐use versus reusable rhinolaryngoscopes for inpatient otorhinolaryngology consults: Resident and patient experience

Single‐use versus reusable rhinolaryngoscopes for inpatient otorhinolaryngology consults: Resident and patient experience

The single-use rhinolaryngoscope: an evaluation and cost comparison

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About