Reusable vs disposable nasopharyngolaryngoscopes: Cost analysis and resident survey

Abstract 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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ryan Walczak, Mark Arnold, Jeewanjot Grewal, Xiao Yuan, Amar Suryadevara, Haidy Marzouk
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2021-02-01
Series:Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.500
id doaj-cdbfad382bb44ea3ad175c0408b45fc0
record_format Article
spelling doaj-cdbfad382bb44ea3ad175c0408b45fc02021-02-15T12:54:20ZengWileyLaryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology2378-80382021-02-0161889310.1002/lio2.500Reusable vs disposable nasopharyngolaryngoscopes: Cost analysis and resident surveyRyan Walczak0Mark Arnold1Jeewanjot Grewal2Xiao Yuan3Amar Suryadevara4Haidy Marzouk5SUNY Upstate Medical University Syracuse New York USASUNY Upstate Medical University Syracuse New York USASUNY Upstate Medical University Syracuse New York USASUNY Upstate Medical University Syracuse New York USASUNY Upstate Medical University Syracuse New York USASUNY Upstate Medical University Syracuse New York USAAbstract 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 (P < .001), and superior in setup (P < .001), convenience (P < .001), and rated better overall (P < .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.https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.500cost analysiscost effectivenessendoscopy
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Ryan Walczak
Mark Arnold
Jeewanjot Grewal
Xiao Yuan
Amar Suryadevara
Haidy Marzouk
spellingShingle Ryan Walczak
Mark Arnold
Jeewanjot Grewal
Xiao Yuan
Amar Suryadevara
Haidy Marzouk
Reusable vs disposable nasopharyngolaryngoscopes: Cost analysis and resident survey
Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
cost analysis
cost effectiveness
endoscopy
author_facet Ryan Walczak
Mark Arnold
Jeewanjot Grewal
Xiao Yuan
Amar Suryadevara
Haidy Marzouk
author_sort Ryan Walczak
title Reusable vs disposable nasopharyngolaryngoscopes: Cost analysis and resident survey
title_short Reusable vs disposable nasopharyngolaryngoscopes: Cost analysis and resident survey
title_full Reusable vs disposable nasopharyngolaryngoscopes: Cost analysis and resident survey
title_fullStr Reusable vs disposable nasopharyngolaryngoscopes: Cost analysis and resident survey
title_full_unstemmed Reusable vs disposable nasopharyngolaryngoscopes: Cost analysis and resident survey
title_sort reusable vs disposable nasopharyngolaryngoscopes: cost analysis and resident survey
publisher Wiley
series Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
issn 2378-8038
publishDate 2021-02-01
description Abstract 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 (P < .001), and superior in setup (P < .001), convenience (P < .001), and rated better overall (P < .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.
topic cost analysis
cost effectiveness
endoscopy
url https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.500
work_keys_str_mv AT ryanwalczak reusablevsdisposablenasopharyngolaryngoscopescostanalysisandresidentsurvey
AT markarnold reusablevsdisposablenasopharyngolaryngoscopescostanalysisandresidentsurvey
AT jeewanjotgrewal reusablevsdisposablenasopharyngolaryngoscopescostanalysisandresidentsurvey
AT xiaoyuan reusablevsdisposablenasopharyngolaryngoscopescostanalysisandresidentsurvey
AT amarsuryadevara reusablevsdisposablenasopharyngolaryngoscopescostanalysisandresidentsurvey
AT haidymarzouk reusablevsdisposablenasopharyngolaryngoscopescostanalysisandresidentsurvey
_version_ 1724269008573693952