Medical College of Georgia, 1421Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA.
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, 1421Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA.
Ear Nose Throat J. 2021 Jan;100(1):NP1-NP6. doi: 10.1177/0145561319862212. Epub 2019 Aug 2.
Although the image quality from modern distal chip endoscopes is superior, limited mobility of the endoscopic tower prevents this technology from being used in inpatient and emergency departments. In these settings, otolaryngologists commonly use older flexible laryngoscopes with portable light sources. However, these light sources could malfunction. Smartphones are ubiquitous nowadays, and the smartphone's flashlight may be used alternatively to provide illumination when primary light malfunctions. This study compares the ability of flashlights from various smartphone models in providing adequate illumination for flexible laryngoscopy when compared to a commercially available portable light source. White wall and mucosal images were captured using Olympus P4 flexible scope and lights from the Stryker X8000 endoscopy tower light source, Storz 11301D3 portable light source (control), iPhone 4, iPhone 6, iPhone 8, iPhone X, Galaxy S6, and Galaxy S7. ImageJ was used to quantify pixel intensities with white and black standardized as 250 and 0, respectively. Student 2-tailed test was used for analysis. The endoscopic tower outperformed all other light sources in all categories. The iPhone 4 and iPhone 6 consistently underperformed in comparison to the Storz 11301D3 portable light source ( < .05). Galaxy S6, Galaxy S7, and newer generation iPhone 8 and iPhone X provide comparable pixel intensities to Storz 11301D3 portable light. Smartphones incorporate different types of light-emitting diodes. Newer Galaxy and iPhone provide adequate illumination for the endoscopic assessment of the airway when compared to commercially available portable light source. However, one should always utilize the best commercially available light source in nonemergent cases.
虽然现代远端芯片内窥镜的图像质量更好,但内窥镜塔的移动性有限,这使得该技术无法在住院部和急诊科使用。在这些环境中,耳鼻喉科医生通常使用带有便携式光源的较旧的柔性喉镜。然而,这些光源可能会出现故障。如今,智能手机无处不在,当主要光源出现故障时,智能手机的闪光灯可以替代提供照明。本研究比较了不同智能手机型号的闪光灯在为柔性喉镜提供照明方面的能力,与市售的便携式光源进行了比较。使用 Olympus P4 柔性镜和 Stryker X8000 内窥镜塔光源、STORZ 11301D3 便携式光源(对照)、iPhone 4、iPhone 6、iPhone 8、iPhone X、Galaxy S6 和 Galaxy S7 的闪光灯拍摄白色墙壁和黏膜图像。使用 ImageJ 对像素强度进行量化,白色和黑色分别标准化为 250 和 0。使用学生 2 尾检验进行分析。内窥镜塔在所有类别中均优于所有其他光源。与 STORZ 11301D3 便携式光源相比,iPhone 4 和 iPhone 6 的性能始终较差(<0.05)。Galaxy S6、Galaxy S7 和较新的 iPhone 8 和 iPhone X 提供的像素强度与 STORZ 11301D3 便携式光源相当。智能手机采用不同类型的发光二极管。与市售的便携式光源相比,新一代 Galaxy 和 iPhone 可为气道的内镜评估提供足够的照明。然而,在非紧急情况下,应始终使用最好的市售光源。