Abstract
Objective
(1) Compare tolerance of aerosolized spray versus syringe administration of topical anesthesia for transnasal flexible laryngoscopy (TFL), (2) analyze cost-effectiveness of both techniques.
Study Design
Prospective, blinded, randomized trial.
Setting
Tertiary academic laryngology practice.
Methods
One hundred and eight patients underwent TFL over 3 months. Patients were randomized to receive equivalent dose 1:1 neosynephrine/4% plain lidocaine mixture via aerosolized spray (“spray”) or application with 1-cc syringe (“syringe”). Patients and physicians independently rated comfort of TFL on 5-point scale (1 = not at all comfortable to 5 = very comfortable). Data were collected on patient and endoscopist experience with TFL and reasons for poor tolerance of laryngoscopy. Cost analyses of disposable spray tips and syringes were calculated.
Results
Both patients and physicians reported very high tolerance of TFL. Patient tolerance appears to be similar between spray- versus syringe-administered anesthesia, although study limitations preclude definitive analysis. Poor tolerance of laryngoscopy was reported in 6.5% with comparable distribution between anesthetic delivery methods. There was no impact of patient prior experience with TFL, and there was no difference between anesthetic methods for TFL performed by resident, fellow, or attending. The difference between costs of the disposable spray tip versus syringe was $1.32 per unit.
Conclusions
Use of a 1-cc syringe is an effective method to provide topical nasal anesthesia for TFL and saves $1.32 per unit compared to disposable spray tips. In our practice, transition to syringe-administered nasal anesthesia is projected to save $1300 per 1000 patients, or an anticipated $1000 per year per physician, with excellent patient tolerance of TFL.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
