Flexible versus rigid laryngoscopy: A randomized crossover study comparing patient experience

Abstract

Objectives: To compare flexible distal-chip laryngoscopy (FDL) versus rigid telescopic laryngoscopy (RTL) in regard to examinees' pain level, comfort, satisfaction, and preference, and to evaluate the clinician's assessment of the examinees' experience with both exam types. Study Design: Randomized crossover study. Methods: Twenty-three normal adult subjects were recruited to undergo both FDL and RTL; the initial exam type was randomized. Subjects and clinicians completed corresponding questionnaires after each exam. Differences in participant characteristics and questionnaire scores between the two exam types were assessed via Pearson χ 2 and paired t tests, respectively. Results: Overall, participants reported that FDL was more uncomfortable than RTL (4.22 vs. 2.91, P = .003) and scored higher on the pain scale for FDL compared to RTL (2.91 vs. 1.70, P = .006). However, there was no significant difference in number of participants who preferred FDL versus RTL (10 [43%] vs. 13 [57%]). Poor correlation was seen between clinicians' assessment of participants' discomfort and actual reported discomfort for FDL (2.70 vs. 4.22, P = .001). Conclusions: Subjects undergoing FDL experience greater discomfort and pain compared to RTL, but do not demonstrate a differential preference of exam. Overall, clinicians underestimate the discomfort of patients undergoing FDL, but participants maintain high satisfaction with both exams nonetheless.

Laryngeal Examination with Laryngeal Mirror and Laryngoscopy

“…A randomized crossover study to compare the patient experience between rigid and flexible laryngoscopy was conducted by Clark et al in adult patients [15]. They also concluded that flexible scopy was associated with more discomfort and pain than rigid laryngoscopy.…”

Comparing Patient Satisfaction After Upfront Treatment Versus Wait-and-Scan for Small Sporadic Vestibular Schwannoma

“…Although this finding has not been reported for patient satisfaction outcomes, this study combines survey responses from ANA members and those from a tertiary referral center, which may lessen the impact of any biases associated with the aforementioned finding. Finally, to date, there does not exist a validated patient satisfaction measurement instrument or disease-specific measure that incorporates these questions for patients with VS; however, similar questions have been implemented across surgical disciplines to effectively capture the patient experience (31)(32)(33).…”