ArticleThe Laryngoscope2026
Ergonomics of In-Office Nasolaryngoscopy: Comparison Between Conventional and Pistol Grip Techniques.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2026. 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.
- Ergonomics of In-Office Nasolaryngoscopy: Comparison Between Conventional and Pistol Grip Techniques.The Laryngoscope · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn-office nasolaryngoscopy in otolaryngology is a short but frequently performed procedure that can lead to substantial ergonomic risk. This study seeks to compare the ergonomic difference between pistol and conventional grip techniques during in-office nasolaryngoscopy.
methodsTwelve otolaryngology staff, residents, and speech language pathologists were prospectively enrolled. Each practitioner was observed performing nasolaryngoscopy on 20 to 40 patients using either the conventional or pistol grips. Ergonomic assessments were conducted using the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) Employee Assessment Worksheet. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize practitioner characteristics, raw RULA scores, and RULA risk categories. Linear mixed models with random intercepts were used to compare the raw RULA scores of the two grips.
resultsOf the total 403 procedures observed, 211 were performed using the conventional grip and 192 using the pistol grip. According to RULA risk categorization, 77.08% of the pistol grip procedures were classified as low ergonomic risk, compared to 58.29% for the conventional grip. Mean RULA scores were 4.1 ± 1.3 for the pistol grip and 4.7 ± 1.3 for the conventional grip. There was a significant mean difference of 0.65 (95% CI: 0.48, 0.82; p < 0.0001) between the two groups.
conclusionOverall, both the pistol grip and conventional grip techniques fell into the same RULA ergonomic risk category. However, the pistol grip had a significantly lower average final RULA score than the conventional grip. Further studies are needed to evaluate the feasibility and broader adoption of the pistol grip across various otolaryngology endoscopic procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3:
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.