Menu
OR
OR
Single-use versus Reusable flexible rhinolaryngoscopes: A retrospective cohort study

ENT

...

4 November, 2026

Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2026 Nov 4;93(1):101924. doi: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2026.101924. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To describe the real-world clinical application of a single-use flexible rhinolaryngoscope in routine otolaryngology practice.

METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients who underwent flexible rhinolaryngoscopy at a tertiary medical center between August 1 and December 1, 2024. Patients were examined using either a Single-use Flexible Rhinolaryngoscope (SFR) or a Reusable Flexible Rhinolaryngoscope (RFR) as part of standard clinical care. All procedures followed institutional protocols. Outcome measures included examination time, treatment time, operator-rated procedural performance (insertion, rotation, withdrawal, and instrument compatibility), subjective image quality, and procedure-related adverse events.

RESULTS: A total of 426 patients were analyzed, including 219 in the SFR group and 207 in the RFR group. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between groups. Mean examination time (SFR: 2.20 ± 1.22 min vs. RFR: 2.18 ± 1.02 min, p = 0.431) and treatment time (SFR: 5.80 ± 3.96 min vs. RFR: 5.35 ± 5.18 min, p = 0.639) did not differ significantly. There was no difference in operator ratings between the two devices regarding insertion, rotation, withdrawal, and compatibility with accessory instruments. Image quality scores were lower for SFR compared with RFR (4.26 ± 0.76 vs. 4.82 ± 0.39, p = 0.001). The SFR was successfully used across a wide range of diagnostic and therapeutic indications, with no device-related adverse events observed.

CONCLUSION: This single-center retrospective study describes the use of a single-use flexible rhinolaryngoscope in routine otolaryngology practice, with procedures completed without device-related interruptions or adverse events.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.

PMID:42981832 | DOI:10.1016/j.bjorl.2026.101924

Read Full Article

Journal Source :

Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology

© 2026 Imedsource, All Rights Reserved

Sustain the Knowledge Stream!

For unrestricted access to content and a seamless experience,

Continue to Login

Don't have an account?

We’d love to get to know you better!

Complete your profile to help us deliver a more personalized experience.