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...
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |