Objective:Compare nasal endoscopy with 3 mm versus conventional 4 mm rigid 30° endoscopes for visualization,patient comfort,and examiner ease.Methods:Ten adults with no previous sinus surgery underwent bilateral ...Objective:Compare nasal endoscopy with 3 mm versus conventional 4 mm rigid 30° endoscopes for visualization,patient comfort,and examiner ease.Methods:Ten adults with no previous sinus surgery underwent bilateral nasal endoscopy with both 4 mm and 3 mm endoscopes (resulting in 20 paired nasal endoscopies).Visualization,patient discomfort and examiner’s difficulty were assessed with every endoscopy.Sino-nasal structures were checked on a list if visualized satisfactorily.Patients rated discomfort on a standardized numerical pain scale (0-10).Examiners rated difficulty of examination on a scale of 1-5 (1 =easiest).Results:Visualization with 3 mm endoscope was superior for the sphenoid ostium (P =0.002),superior turbinate (P =0.007),spheno-ethmoid recess (P =0.006),uncinate process (P =0.002),cribdform area (P =0.007),and Valve of Hasner (P =0.002).Patient discomfort was not significantly different for 3 mm vs.4 mm endoscopes but correlated with the examiners’ assessment of difficulty (r =0.73).The examiner rated endoscopy with 4 mm endoscopes more difficult (P =0.027).Conclusions:The 3 mm endoscope was superior in visualizing the sphenoid ostium,superior turbinate,spheno-ethmoid recess,uncinate process,cribriform plate,and valve of Hasner.It therefore may be useful in assessment of spheno-ethmoid recess,nasolacrimal duct,and cribriform area pathologies.Overall,patients tolerated nasal endoscopy well.Though patient discomfort was not significantly different between the endoscopes,most discomfort with 3 mm endoscopes was noted while examining structures difficult to visualize with the 4 mm endoscope.Patients’ discomfort correlated with the examiner’s assessment of difficulty.展开更多
文摘Objective:Compare nasal endoscopy with 3 mm versus conventional 4 mm rigid 30° endoscopes for visualization,patient comfort,and examiner ease.Methods:Ten adults with no previous sinus surgery underwent bilateral nasal endoscopy with both 4 mm and 3 mm endoscopes (resulting in 20 paired nasal endoscopies).Visualization,patient discomfort and examiner’s difficulty were assessed with every endoscopy.Sino-nasal structures were checked on a list if visualized satisfactorily.Patients rated discomfort on a standardized numerical pain scale (0-10).Examiners rated difficulty of examination on a scale of 1-5 (1 =easiest).Results:Visualization with 3 mm endoscope was superior for the sphenoid ostium (P =0.002),superior turbinate (P =0.007),spheno-ethmoid recess (P =0.006),uncinate process (P =0.002),cribdform area (P =0.007),and Valve of Hasner (P =0.002).Patient discomfort was not significantly different for 3 mm vs.4 mm endoscopes but correlated with the examiners’ assessment of difficulty (r =0.73).The examiner rated endoscopy with 4 mm endoscopes more difficult (P =0.027).Conclusions:The 3 mm endoscope was superior in visualizing the sphenoid ostium,superior turbinate,spheno-ethmoid recess,uncinate process,cribriform plate,and valve of Hasner.It therefore may be useful in assessment of spheno-ethmoid recess,nasolacrimal duct,and cribriform area pathologies.Overall,patients tolerated nasal endoscopy well.Though patient discomfort was not significantly different between the endoscopes,most discomfort with 3 mm endoscopes was noted while examining structures difficult to visualize with the 4 mm endoscope.Patients’ discomfort correlated with the examiner’s assessment of difficulty.
