Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Surg.
Sec. Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
Volume 11 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2024.1380571

Comparison of utility and organizational impact of reusable and singleuse rhinolaryngoscopes in a tertiary otorhinolaryngology department

Provisionally accepted
Gunnhildur Gudnadottir Gunnhildur Gudnadottir 1,2,3*Louise Hafsten Louise Hafsten 3Helena D. Travis Helena D. Travis 4Kirsten Nielsen Kirsten Nielsen 4Johan Hellgren Johan Hellgren 2,3*
  • 1 National University Hospital of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
  • 2 Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
  • 3 Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
  • 4 Ambu AS, Ballerup, Denmark

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Background: Flexible rhinolaryngoscopes are an important tool in otolaryngology. In recent years, single-use rhinolaryngoscopes (SURLs), which have been developed as an alternative to reusable scopes (RRLs), offer various advantages including less risk of contamination and elimination of the need for cleaning and reprocessing between procedures. This study aimed to compare procedure efficiency, organizational impact, and economic impact between SURLs and RRLs used for elective procedures conducted outside the otorhinolaryngology department in the hospital environment. Methods: In this randomized prospective study, either type of endoscope was tested by on-call otolaryngologists over a total of twelve weeks. The organizational impact was investigated using a quantitative research design. All categories of stakeholders responded to specific surveys based on profession; these included doctors (n = 13), those in managerial positions (n = 3), and other healthcare staff including technicians and nurses (n = 11). A micro-costing approach was used to evaluate resource utilization and cost of services. The trial was uploaded to clinicaltrials.gov (ID number: NCT0519821, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05198219?intr=rhinolaryngo&rank=1).Results: Overall, 14 and 12 procedures were performed using the SURLs and RRLs, respectively. No significant differences were observed between the endoscopes in terms of procedure duration, reported image quality, or maneuverability. The SURLs were significantly superior in terms of four organizational impact parameters, namely, modes of cooperation and communication, vigilance and monitoring methods, working conditions and safety, and logistics. The estimated per-procedure cost of the RRLs was SEK 399 (€ 34,68).The cost and effectiveness of RRLs and SURLs is influenced by the healthcare setting, procedure volume, and duration of device use. The adoption of SURLs can improve safety, streamline processes, and potentially reduce the risk of disease transmission.

    Keywords: Endoscopy, Nasopharyngoscopy, Rhinolaryngoscopy, Single-use, Organizational impact

    Received: 01 Feb 2024; Accepted: 04 Sep 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Gudnadottir, Hafsten, Travis, Nielsen and Hellgren. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence:
    Gunnhildur Gudnadottir, National University Hospital of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
    Johan Hellgren, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, 405 83, Sweden

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.