ArticleThe Laryngoscope2026
Nebulized Lidocaine Through a Channeled Endoscope for Office Laryngology Procedures.
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.
- Nebulized Lidocaine Through a Channeled Endoscope for Office Laryngology Procedures.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study sought to compare topical lidocaine delivered through a channeled endoscope versus traditional anesthetic methods for office laryngology procedures.
methodsA single-institution prospective, crossover study of adult patients undergoing office laryngology procedures from February 2023 to February 2024 was conducted. Patient-reported outcomes for procedural tolerance and anesthetic preference were compared between the investigational method of channel-nebulized lidocaine versus control anesthetic delivery (trans-tracheal or drip catheter), with each patient serving as his/her own control.
resultsTwenty-two subjects were included in the study. Control topical anesthesia included: 13 (59.1%) trans-tracheal and 9 (40.9%) drip catheter. On bivariate analysis, the use of channel-nebulized lidocaine was associated with reduced lidocaine dosage (0.4 vs. 1.7 mL, p < 0.001), increased anesthesia delivery time (335 vs. 119 s, p < 0.001), and increased total procedure time (543 vs. 321 s, p < 0.001). No significant differences in anesthetic delivery time or total procedure time were observed when comparing channel-nebulized delivery with drip catheter. Discomfort during lidocaine administration (p < 0.001) and cough/gag during lidocaine administration (p < 0.001) were significantly lower with channel-nebulized lidocaine. Multiple linear regression revealed these improvements were not significantly influenced by indication for procedure, years undergoing procedures, or control method of anesthesia. A majority (63.6%) of patients preferred channel-nebulized lidocaine.
conclusionTopical laryngeal anesthesia for office laryngology procedures can be challenging due to patient tolerance. Nebulized lidocaine delivered through an endoscopic working channel may improve patient tolerance and reduce lidocaine dosage but may be associated with longer procedure time. 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.