Reusable vs disposable nasopharyngolaryngoscopes: Cost analysis and resident survey.

OBJECTIVE

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.

STUDY DESIGN

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).

SETTING

Cost analysis performed at a single academic center. Resident survey distributed to multiple residency programs throughout the United States.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSION

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.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA.