Walczak Ryan, Arnold Mark, Grewal Jeewanjot, Yuan Xiao, Suryadevara Amar, Marzouk Haidy
SUNY Upstate Medical University Syracuse New York USA.
Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2020 Dec 10;6(1):88-93. doi: 10.1002/lio2.500. eCollection 2021 Feb.
Assess the quality of a new disposable nasopharyngolaryngoscope (NPL) through resident feedback at multiple academic institutions and provide a cost analysis of reusable and disposable NPLs at a single academic center.
An online survey was distributed to residents at institutions throughout the United States that have implemented use of a disposable NPL (Ambu aScope 4 Rhinolaryngo).
Cost analysis performed at a single academic center. Resident survey distributed to multiple residency programs throughout the United States.
The survey collected demographic information and asked residents to rate the new disposable NPL and other reusable NPLs using a 5-point Likert scale. A cost analysis was performed of both reusable and disposable NPLs using information obtained at a single academic center.
The survey was distributed to 109 residents throughout the country and 37 were completed for a response rate of 33.9%. The disposable NPL was comparable to reusable NPLs based on ergonomics and maneuverability, inferior in imaging quality ( < .001), and superior in setup ( < .001), convenience ( < .001), and rated better overall ( < .04). The disposable NPL was found to be cheaper per use than reusable NPLs at $171.82 and $170.36 compared to $238.17 and $197.88 per use for the reusable NPL if the life span is 1 year and 5 years respectively.
Disposable NPLs may offer an alternative option and initial feedback obtained from resident physicians is favorable. Cost analysis favors disposable NPLs as the cost-effective option.
NA.
通过多所学术机构住院医师的反馈评估一种新型一次性鼻咽喉镜（NPL）的质量，并在单一学术中心对一次性和可重复使用的鼻咽喉镜进行成本分析。
向美国各地已实施使用一次性NPL（Ambu aScope 4 Rhinolaryngo）的机构的住院医师发放在线调查问卷。
在单一学术中心进行成本分析。向美国多个住院医师培训项目发放住院医师调查问卷。
调查问卷收集人口统计学信息，并要求住院医师使用5分李克特量表对新型一次性NPL和其他可重复使用的NPL进行评分。利用在单一学术中心获得的信息对一次性和可重复使用的鼻咽喉镜进行成本分析。
该调查问卷发放给了全国109名住院医师，37份问卷完成了作答，回复率为33.9%。基于人体工程学和可操作性，一次性NPL与可重复使用的NPL相当；在成像质量方面较差（<0.001），在设置方面更优（<0.001），便利性方面更优（<0.001），总体评分更高（<0.04）。如果使用寿命分别为1年和5年，发现一次性NPL每次使用成本比可重复使用的NPL更低，分别为171.82美元和170.36美元，而可重复使用的NPL每次使用成本分别为238.17美元和197.88美元。
一次性NPL可能提供一种替代选择，并且从住院医师处获得的初步反馈是积极的。成本分析表明一次性NPL是性价比更高的选择。
无。
