• Home
  • Practice Focus
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
    • How I Do It
    • TRIO Best Practices
  • Business of Medicine
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Practice Management
    • Tech Talk
    • AI
  • Literature Reviews
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Career
    • Medical Education
    • Professional Development
    • Resident Focus
  • ENT Perspectives
    • ENT Expressions
    • Everyday Ethics
    • From TRIO
    • The Great Debate
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Rx: Wellness
    • The Voice
    • Viewpoint
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • Search

Disposable Nasopharyngolaryngoscope May Be a Viable and Cost-Effective Alternative

by Linda Kossoff • January 15, 2021

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

How does the new disposable nasopharyngolaryngoscope (NPL) compare in quality and cost to the reusable NPL?

BOTTOM LINE: Disposable NPLs may offer an alternative to reusable NPLs in terms of quality and cost-effectiveness.

You Might Also Like

  • MRI Is Cost-Effective for Diagnosing Asymmetric SNHL
  • Electrocautery a Cost-Effective Alternative for Outpatient Pediatric Adenoidectomy
  • CT Neck Scans Are Cost-Effective Diagnostic Tools for UVFP
  • Upfront Sialendoscopy Is a Cost-Effective Option for RAIS
Explore This Issue
January 2021

BACKGROUND: Widely used in otolaryngology, reusable NPLs require time-consuming reprocessing between uses to avoid cross-contamination. Disposable NPLs have been produced and implemented at U.S. institutions, but there are no studies comparing the cost-effectiveness of the two NPL types, or published literature evaluating physician feedback on use of the disposable version.

STUDY DESIGN: Online survey.

SETTING: State University of New York Upstate Department of Otolaryngology and Communication Sciences, Syracuse, N.Y.

SYNOPSIS: Researchers created a web-based anonymous survey to assess feedback from otolaryngology residents at nine U.S. institutions that had instituted use of the Ambu aScope 4 RhinoLaryngo, a disposable NPL. A total of 31 respondents were included in the data analysis. The survey used a five-point Likert scale to evaluate feedback on imaging quality, maneuverability, ergonomics, setup, convenience, and overall ratings. Researchers also performed a comparative, one-year cost analysis of reusable and disposable NPL use, based on information obtained from a single institution. Study results showed that residents rated the disposable NPL as superior to the reusable NPL with regard to setup and convenience, inferior in imaging quality, and comparable in maneuverability and ergonomics. Overall, the disposable NPL rated slightly higher than the reusable NPL (4.4 versus 4.0). Findings also showed the disposable NPL to be cost-effective compared to reusable NPLs, due largely to the high costs of repairs on the latter during the examined year. Study limitations included difficulties in survey distribution to additional institutions, and in estimating costs of certain materials.

CITATION: Walczak R, Arnold M, Grewal J, et al. Reusable vs disposable nasopharyngolaryngoscopes: cost analysis and resident survey [published online ahead of print December 10, 2020]. Laryngoscope. doi: 10.1002/lio2.500.

Filed Under: Literature Reviews, Rhinology, Rhinology Tagged With: clinical research, treatmentIssue: January 2021

You Might Also Like:

  • MRI Is Cost-Effective for Diagnosing Asymmetric SNHL
  • Electrocautery a Cost-Effective Alternative for Outpatient Pediatric Adenoidectomy
  • CT Neck Scans Are Cost-Effective Diagnostic Tools for UVFP
  • Upfront Sialendoscopy Is a Cost-Effective Option for RAIS

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

Polls

Do you use AI-powered scribes for documentation?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive

Top Articles for Residents

  • Applications Open for Resident Members of ENTtoday Edit Board
  • How To Provide Helpful Feedback To Residents
  • Call for Resident Bowl Questions
  • New Standardized Otolaryngology Curriculum Launching July 1 Should Be Valuable Resource For Physicians Around The World
  • Do Training Programs Give Otolaryngology Residents the Necessary Tools to Do Productive Research?
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • How to: Positioning for Middle Cranial Fossa Repair of Superior Semicircular Canal Dehiscence

    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • Endoscopic Ear Surgery: Advancements and Adoption Challenges 

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • Complications for When Physicians Change a Maiden Name

    • The Importance of Time Away
    • Endoscopic Ear Surgery: Advancements and Adoption Challenges 
    • Reflections from a Past President of the Triological Society
    • ENT Surgeons Explore the Benefits and Challenges of AI-Powered Scribes: Revolutionizing Documentation in Healthcare
    • How To: Open Expansion Laryngoplasty for Combined Glottic and Subglottic Stenosis

Follow Us

  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • The Triological Society
  • The Laryngoscope
  • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookies

Wiley

Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1559-4939