ArticleOtolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery2025
Establishing Usage Patterns and Repair Costs for Video Rhinolaryngoscopes at a Tertiary Academic Outpatient Center.
Article in Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Environmental Impact of a Novel UV-C Disinfection Machine for Non-Channel Flexible Laryngoscopes.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the financial impact of video rhinolaryngoscope repairs by determining repair costs and assessing the link between reprocessing patterns and repair frequency. STUDY
designRetrospective review.
settingOutpatient settings at two tertiary care academic centers.
methodsRepair and maintenance records for video rhinolaryngoscopes were analyzed for two tertiary care academic centers, Hospital V and Hospital S. Data were collected from January 1, 2021, to March 1, 2024, for Hospital S, and from June 18, 2019, to March 1, 2024, for Hospital V. Hospital S utilized automated endoscope reprocessing, whereas Hospital V employed manual reprocessing. Both hospitals used Olympus flexible video rhinolaryngoscopes.
resultsHospital V reprocessed the endoscopes within the clinic space, whereas Hospital S used centralized reprocessing. The age of rhinolaryngoscopes varied at Hospital S, whereas all endoscopes were purchased new at Hospital V during the time of study. Hospital V, with 11 rhinolaryngoscopes, conducted 15,776 outpatient rhinolaryngoscopy examinations, averaging 435 uses per endoscope annually. Only one endoscope required repair, with a total cost of CAD $1940, resulting in a repair cost of CAD $0.12 per examination. In contrast, Hospital S, operating with 17 rhinolaryngoscopes, performed 7812 exams, averaging 145 uses per endoscope annually. A total of 28 repair instances were reported, with a total cost of CAD $87,950, resulting in a repair cost of CAD $11.26 per examination.
conclusionThis study highlights the impact of equipment age and reprocessing practices on repair costs and frequencies for reusable video rhinolaryngoscopes. The repair costs at both hospitals are supportive of continued use of reusable rhinolaryngoscopes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.