143
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

An oral pharyngeal scope for objective oropharyngeal examination: a new device for oropharyngeal study

, , , , , , , , , , , , & show all
Pages 487-491 | Received 17 Oct 2017, Accepted 09 Nov 2017, Published online: 05 Dec 2017
 

Abstract

Objective: There has been little progress in examination of the oropharynx with a light source such as electric light, a penlight, or a forehead mirror over the past 100 years. It is therefore necessary to develop methods to display and record oropharyngeal observations.

Method: Since the aim of this study was to assess the safeness to use from the perspective of physicians, medical staffs, patients, and patients’ families and usefulness of pharyngeal scope, the number of devices was limited, the number of patients was not set based on hypothetical statistical tests.

Results: A total of 150 volunteers were enrolled in this study. Among them, 96 underwent examination alone and the remaining 28 underwent treatment procedures. The study was done without any complications in all 150 cases. Most (91.3%) physicians hoped to continue using the new device if available. When comparing the use of the device for observation alone and for treatment procedures, there was no significant difference for evaluation items (p > .05) except convenience factor which received a significantly different (p = .0154) evaluation from physicians for observation alone and for treatment procedures. A positive evaluation was received about examination, recording/display and explanation from the patients and patients’ families.

Conclusions: Our new device received positive evaluations by who underwent examination of the oral cavity and pharynx, recording of the results, and treatment procedures.

Chinese abstract

目的:在过去的一百年里, 用电光源、笔电、额镜等光源进行口咽检查, 其进展甚微。因此有必要开发展示和记录口咽观察的方法。

方法:由于本研究的目的是从医师、医务人员、患者和患者家属的角度评估使用的安全性和咽范围的有用性, 设备数量是有限的, 因此患者人数并未基于假设的统计测试来设定。

结果:共有150名志愿者参加了这项研究。其中96人只接受检查, 其余28人接受治疗。在这项研究中, 150例患者没有任何并发​​症。大部分(91.3%)医生希望能够使用新设备继续进行这项研究。当比较使用装置只进行观察和进行治疗时, 对于评价项目(p > 0.05)没有显著差异, 除了方便因子以外。医师对方便因子作出了在用于只进行观察和进行治疗程序之间显著差异的评价(p = 0.0154)。收到从患者和患者家属处的关于检查、记录/显示和解释的正面评价。

结论:我们的新器械从接受口腔和咽部检查的、进行结果记录和治疗程序的人那里得到了肯定的评价。

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 65.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 226.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.