ENLYT®便携式柔性鼻咽镜与标准护理鼻咽镜的比较

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Julian Fine, Russel Kahmke, Tammara Watts, Daniel Rocke, Liana Puscas, Maragatha Kuchibhatla, Walter T Lee
{"title":"ENLYT®便携式柔性鼻咽镜与标准护理鼻咽镜的比较","authors":"Julian Fine, Russel Kahmke, Tammara Watts, Daniel Rocke, Liana Puscas, Maragatha Kuchibhatla, Walter T Lee","doi":"10.1177/15533506251374480","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectivesThis study seeks to compare a newly developed portable flexible nasopharyngoscope (ENLYT<sup>®</sup>) to the standard of care (SOC) flexible nasopharyngoscope.MethodsSubjects were consented to undergo a nasopharyngeal scope exam using ENLYT<sup>®</sup> after SOC nasopharyngoscope examination. Data collection included a physician feedback survey consisting of questions regarding ease of use, video quality and perceived patient pain. Additionally, subjects provided a comparison of discomfort between the two scopes.ResultsThe following results were compiled from nine examiners completing ENLYT<sup>®</sup> exams on 50 patients. The nine examiners consisted of five attendings, three residents, and 1 physician assistant. The attendings performed 31 exams (62%) and the others performed 19 exams (38%). 72% of the exam surveys reported the ENLYT<sup>®</sup> flexible nasopharyngoscope was the same or easier to use than the SOC nasopharyngoscope. 88% of exams reported the ENLYT<sup>®</sup> video quality was \"the same\" to \"better\". 94% of exams reported the perceived patient pain with the ENLYT<sup>®</sup> flexible nasopharyngoscope was the same or less than the SOC nasopharyngoscope. Subjects reported that 88% of the exams were the same or less discomfort with the ENLYT<sup>®</sup> scope compared to the SOC scope.ConclusionThe portable ENLYT<sup>®</sup> flexible nasopharyngoscope was able to provide comparable exam results when compared to the SOC nasopharyngoscope.</p>","PeriodicalId":22095,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Innovation","volume":" ","pages":"15533506251374480"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12459334/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of ENLYT<sup>®</sup>, a Portable Flexible Nasopharyngoscope, with the Standard of Care Nasopharyngoscope.\",\"authors\":\"Julian Fine, Russel Kahmke, Tammara Watts, Daniel Rocke, Liana Puscas, Maragatha Kuchibhatla, Walter T Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15533506251374480\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>ObjectivesThis study seeks to compare a newly developed portable flexible nasopharyngoscope (ENLYT<sup>®</sup>) to the standard of care (SOC) flexible nasopharyngoscope.MethodsSubjects were consented to undergo a nasopharyngeal scope exam using ENLYT<sup>®</sup> after SOC nasopharyngoscope examination. Data collection included a physician feedback survey consisting of questions regarding ease of use, video quality and perceived patient pain. Additionally, subjects provided a comparison of discomfort between the two scopes.ResultsThe following results were compiled from nine examiners completing ENLYT<sup>®</sup> exams on 50 patients. The nine examiners consisted of five attendings, three residents, and 1 physician assistant. The attendings performed 31 exams (62%) and the others performed 19 exams (38%). 72% of the exam surveys reported the ENLYT<sup>®</sup> flexible nasopharyngoscope was the same or easier to use than the SOC nasopharyngoscope. 88% of exams reported the ENLYT<sup>®</sup> video quality was \\\"the same\\\" to \\\"better\\\". 94% of exams reported the perceived patient pain with the ENLYT<sup>®</sup> flexible nasopharyngoscope was the same or less than the SOC nasopharyngoscope. Subjects reported that 88% of the exams were the same or less discomfort with the ENLYT<sup>®</sup> scope compared to the SOC scope.ConclusionThe portable ENLYT<sup>®</sup> flexible nasopharyngoscope was able to provide comparable exam results when compared to the SOC nasopharyngoscope.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22095,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgical Innovation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"15533506251374480\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12459334/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgical Innovation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15533506251374480\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15533506251374480","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在比较新开发的便携式柔性鼻咽喉镜(ENLYT®)与标准护理(SOC)柔性鼻咽喉镜。方法受试者同意在SOC鼻咽镜检查后使用ENLYT®进行鼻咽镜检查。数据收集包括一项医生反馈调查,包括关于易用性、视频质量和感知患者疼痛的问题。此外,受试者提供了两个范围之间的不适比较。以下结果是由9名审查员对50名患者完成ENLYT®检查后得出的。9名检查人员包括5名主治医师、3名住院医师和1名医师助理。主治医师进行31次检查(62%),其他医师进行19次检查(38%)。72%的检查调查报告ENLYT®柔性鼻咽喉镜与SOC鼻咽喉镜相同或更容易使用。88%的考试报告ENLYT®视频质量为“相同”至“更好”。94%的检查报告,使用ENLYT®柔性鼻咽喉镜的患者疼痛感与SOC鼻咽喉镜相同或更小。受试者报告说,88%的检查与SOC范围相比,ENLYT®范围的不适程度相同或更低。结论与SOC鼻咽镜相比,便携式ENLYT®柔性鼻咽镜能够提供相当的检查结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of ENLYT®, a Portable Flexible Nasopharyngoscope, with the Standard of Care Nasopharyngoscope.

ObjectivesThis study seeks to compare a newly developed portable flexible nasopharyngoscope (ENLYT®) to the standard of care (SOC) flexible nasopharyngoscope.MethodsSubjects were consented to undergo a nasopharyngeal scope exam using ENLYT® after SOC nasopharyngoscope examination. Data collection included a physician feedback survey consisting of questions regarding ease of use, video quality and perceived patient pain. Additionally, subjects provided a comparison of discomfort between the two scopes.ResultsThe following results were compiled from nine examiners completing ENLYT® exams on 50 patients. The nine examiners consisted of five attendings, three residents, and 1 physician assistant. The attendings performed 31 exams (62%) and the others performed 19 exams (38%). 72% of the exam surveys reported the ENLYT® flexible nasopharyngoscope was the same or easier to use than the SOC nasopharyngoscope. 88% of exams reported the ENLYT® video quality was "the same" to "better". 94% of exams reported the perceived patient pain with the ENLYT® flexible nasopharyngoscope was the same or less than the SOC nasopharyngoscope. Subjects reported that 88% of the exams were the same or less discomfort with the ENLYT® scope compared to the SOC scope.ConclusionThe portable ENLYT® flexible nasopharyngoscope was able to provide comparable exam results when compared to the SOC nasopharyngoscope.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Surgical Innovation
Surgical Innovation 医学-外科
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
72
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Surgical Innovation (SRI) is a peer-reviewed bi-monthly journal focusing on minimally invasive surgical techniques, new instruments such as laparoscopes and endoscopes, and new technologies. SRI prepares surgeons to think and work in "the operating room of the future" through learning new techniques, understanding and adapting to new technologies, maintaining surgical competencies, and applying surgical outcomes data to their practices. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信