Comparison of 3Â mm versus 4Â mm rigid endoscope in diagnostic nasal endoscopy

Objective: Compare nasal endoscopy with 3Â mm versus conventional 4Â mm rigid 30Â° endoscopes for visualization, patient comfort, and examiner ease. Methods: Ten adults with no previous sinus surgery underwent bilateral nasal endoscopy with both 4Â mm and 3Â mm endoscopes (resulting in 20 paired nas...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Gregory S. Neel, Ryan L. Kau, Stephen F. Bansberg, Devyani Lal
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	KeAi Communications Co., Ltd. 2017
Materias:	Otorhinolaryngology RF1-547 Surgery RD1-811
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/f6a7fe1602d04c2fa088feb41a0ae0af
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:f6a7fe1602d04c2fa088feb41a0ae0af
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:f6a7fe1602d04c2fa088feb41a0ae0af2021-12-02T11:50:27ZComparison of 3Â mm versus 4Â mm rigid endoscope in diagnostic nasal endoscopy2095-881110.1016/j.wjorl.2017.02.006https://doaj.org/article/f6a7fe1602d04c2fa088feb41a0ae0af2017-03-01T00:00:00Zhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095881117300021https://doaj.org/toc/2095-8811Objective: Compare nasal endoscopy with 3Â mm versus conventional 4Â mm rigid 30Â° endoscopes for visualization, patient comfort, and examiner ease. Methods: Ten adults with no previous sinus surgery underwent bilateral nasal endoscopy with both 4Â mm and 3Â mm endoscopes (resulting in 20 paired nasal endoscopies). Visualization, patient discomfort and examiner's difficulty were assessed with every endoscopy. Sino-nasal structures were checked on a list if visualized satisfactorily. Patients rated discomfort on a standardized numerical pain scale (0â10). Examiners rated difficulty of examination on a scale of 1â5 (1Â =Â easiest). Results: Visualization with 3Â mm endoscope was superior for the sphenoid ostium (PÂ =Â 0.002), superior turbinate (PÂ =Â 0.007), spheno-ethmoid recess (PÂ =Â 0.006), uncinate process (PÂ =Â 0.002), cribriform area (PÂ =Â 0.007), and Valve of Hasner (PÂ =Â 0.002). Patient discomfort was not significantly different for 3Â mm vs. 4Â mm endoscopes but correlated with the examiners' assessment of difficulty (rÂ =Â 0.73). The examiner rated endoscopy with 4Â mm endoscopes more difficult (PÂ =Â 0.027). Conclusions: The 3Â mm endoscope was superior in visualizing the sphenoid ostium, superior turbinate, spheno-ethmoid recess, uncinate process, cribriform plate, and valve of Hasner. It therefore may be useful in assessment of spheno-ethmoid recess, nasolacrimal duct, and cribriform area pathologies. Overall, patients tolerated nasal endoscopy well. Though patient discomfort was not significantly different between the endoscopes, most discomfort with 3Â mm endoscopes was noted while examining structures difficult to visualize with the 4Â mm endoscope. Patients' discomfort correlated with the examiner's assessment of difficulty. Keywords: Diagnostic, Nasal endoscopy, Pediatric endoscope, 3Â mm endoscopeGregory S. NeelRyan L. KauStephen F. BansbergDevyani LalKeAi Communications Co., Ltd.articleOtorhinolaryngologyRF1-547SurgeryRD1-811ENWorld Journal of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Vol 3, Iss 1, Pp 32-36 (2017)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Otorhinolaryngology RF1-547 Surgery RD1-811
spellingShingle	Otorhinolaryngology RF1-547 Surgery RD1-811 Gregory S. Neel Ryan L. Kau Stephen F. Bansberg Devyani Lal Comparison of 3Â mm versus 4Â mm rigid endoscope in diagnostic nasal endoscopy
description	Objective: Compare nasal endoscopy with 3Â mm versus conventional 4Â mm rigid 30Â° endoscopes for visualization, patient comfort, and examiner ease. Methods: Ten adults with no previous sinus surgery underwent bilateral nasal endoscopy with both 4Â mm and 3Â mm endoscopes (resulting in 20 paired nasal endoscopies). Visualization, patient discomfort and examiner's difficulty were assessed with every endoscopy. Sino-nasal structures were checked on a list if visualized satisfactorily. Patients rated discomfort on a standardized numerical pain scale (0â10). Examiners rated difficulty of examination on a scale of 1â5 (1Â =Â easiest). Results: Visualization with 3Â mm endoscope was superior for the sphenoid ostium (PÂ =Â 0.002), superior turbinate (PÂ =Â 0.007), spheno-ethmoid recess (PÂ =Â 0.006), uncinate process (PÂ =Â 0.002), cribriform area (PÂ =Â 0.007), and Valve of Hasner (PÂ =Â 0.002). Patient discomfort was not significantly different for 3Â mm vs. 4Â mm endoscopes but correlated with the examiners' assessment of difficulty (rÂ =Â 0.73). The examiner rated endoscopy with 4Â mm endoscopes more difficult (PÂ =Â 0.027). Conclusions: The 3Â mm endoscope was superior in visualizing the sphenoid ostium, superior turbinate, spheno-ethmoid recess, uncinate process, cribriform plate, and valve of Hasner. It therefore may be useful in assessment of spheno-ethmoid recess, nasolacrimal duct, and cribriform area pathologies. Overall, patients tolerated nasal endoscopy well. Though patient discomfort was not significantly different between the endoscopes, most discomfort with 3Â mm endoscopes was noted while examining structures difficult to visualize with the 4Â mm endoscope. Patients' discomfort correlated with the examiner's assessment of difficulty. Keywords: Diagnostic, Nasal endoscopy, Pediatric endoscope, 3Â mm endoscope
format	article
author	Gregory S. Neel Ryan L. Kau Stephen F. Bansberg Devyani Lal
author_facet	Gregory S. Neel Ryan L. Kau Stephen F. Bansberg Devyani Lal
author_sort	Gregory S. Neel
title	Comparison of 3Â mm versus 4Â mm rigid endoscope in diagnostic nasal endoscopy
title_short	Comparison of 3Â mm versus 4Â mm rigid endoscope in diagnostic nasal endoscopy
title_full	Comparison of 3Â mm versus 4Â mm rigid endoscope in diagnostic nasal endoscopy
title_fullStr	Comparison of 3Â mm versus 4Â mm rigid endoscope in diagnostic nasal endoscopy
title_full_unstemmed	Comparison of 3Â mm versus 4Â mm rigid endoscope in diagnostic nasal endoscopy
title_sort	comparison of 3â mm versus 4â mm rigid endoscope in diagnostic nasal endoscopy
publisher	KeAi Communications Co., Ltd.
publishDate	2017
url	https://doaj.org/article/f6a7fe1602d04c2fa088feb41a0ae0af
work_keys_str_mv	AT gregorysneel comparisonof3ammversus4ammrigidendoscopeindiagnosticnasalendoscopy AT ryanlkau comparisonof3ammversus4ammrigidendoscopeindiagnosticnasalendoscopy AT stephenfbansberg comparisonof3ammversus4ammrigidendoscopeindiagnosticnasalendoscopy AT devyanilal comparisonof3ammversus4ammrigidendoscopeindiagnosticnasalendoscopy
_version_	1718395201584627712

Comparison of 3Â mm versus 4Â mm rigid endoscope in diagnostic nasal endoscopy

Ejemplares similares