Reusable vs disposable nasopharyngolaryngoscopes: Cost analysis and resident survey

OBJECTIVE: Assess the quality of a new disposable nasopharyngolaryngoscope (NPL) through resident feedback at multiple academic institutions and provide a cost analysis of reusable and disposable NPLs at a single academic center. STUDY DESIGN: An online survey was distributed to residents at institutions throughout the United States that have implemented use of a disposable NPL (Ambu aScope 4 Rhinolaryngo). SETTING: Cost analysis performed at a single academic center. Resident survey distributed to multiple residency programs throughout the United States. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The survey collected demographic information and asked residents to rate the new disposable NPL and other reusable NPLs using a 5‐point Likert scale. A cost analysis was performed of both reusable and disposable NPLs using information obtained at a single academic center. RESULTS: The survey was distributed to 109 residents throughout the country and 37 were completed for a response rate of 33.9%. The disposable NPL was comparable to reusable NPLs based on ergonomics and maneuverability, inferior in imaging quality (P < .001), and superior in setup (P < .001), convenience (P < .001), and rated better overall (P < .04). The disposable NPL was found to be cheaper per use than reusable NPLs at $171.82 and $170.36 compared to $238.17 and $197.88 per use for the reusable NPL if the life span is 1 year and 5 years respectively. CONCLUSION: Disposable NPLs may offer an alternative option and initial feedback obtained from resident physicians is favorable. Cost analysis favors disposable NPLs as the cost‐effective option. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.