The efficacy of topical anaesthesia in flexible nasendoscopy: a double-blind randomised controlled trial

Tutorial on Clinical Practice for Use of the Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing Procedure With Adult Populations: Part 1

PURPOSE

Representatives of the American Board of Swallowing and Swallowing Disorders (AB-SSD) and American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) Special Interest Group (SIG) 13: Swallowing and Swallowing Disorders (Dysphagia) developed this tutorial to identify and recommend best practice guidelines for speech-language pathologists who conduct and interpret fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) procedures in adults. This document also includes proposed training needs and methods for achieving competency. Expert opinion is provided regarding indications for performing the FEES exam, potential contraindications, adverse effects and safety, equipment and personal protection, the exam protocol, interpretation and documentation of findings, and training requirements to perform and interpret the exam.

CONCLUSIONS

This tutorial by the AB-SSD and SIG 13 represents the first update about the FEES procedure since ASHA's position paper and technical report published in 2004. Creation of this document by members of the AB-SSD and SIG 13 is intended to guide professionals who are training for or practicing FEES in the adult population toward established best practices and the highest standards of care.

Decision aid and preference assessment of topical anesthesia for otolaryngology procedures

OBJECTIVES

To determine preference patterns for topical anesthesia in patients undergoing endoscopy pre-coronavirus (2019 coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) pandemic and analyze outcomes based on preference, using a decision aid format.

METHODS

A decision aid was developed with expert and patient input. New patients presenting to subspecialty clinics over a 2-month pre-COVID-19 period completed a pre-procedure survey about their priorities, then were asked to choose between topical oxymetazoline/lidocaine spray or none. A post-procedure outcome survey followed.

RESULTS

Of 151 patients, 90.1% patients elected to have topical anesthesia. Top patient priorities were "I want the scope to be easy for the doctor" and "I want to be as comfortable as possible." Patients who strongly wanted to avoid medication (P = .002) and bad taste (P = .003) were more likely to select no spray, whereas those who wanted to avoid pain received anesthetic (P = .011). According to the post-procedure assessment, 95.4% of patients were satisfied or strongly satisfied their choice, and this did not correlate with anesthetic vs none.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient preferences are easily elicited and correlate with treatment choices. Most patients chose to have topical anesthetic and were willing to tolerate side effects; however, both patients with and without topical anesthetic were satisfied with their choices. This decision aid can be used to optimize shared decision making in the otolaryngology clinic. Given the aerosolizing potential of both spray and no spray conditions, this insight may be consequential when devising office protocols for post-COVID-19 practice.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Which one is favorable in the elderly? Transoral rigid laryngoscopy or transnasal flexible fiberoptic laryngoscopy

PURPOSE

To determine whether transoral rigid laryngeal endoscopy (TORLE) or transnasal flexible fiberoptic laryngoscopy (TNFFL) is more favorable for laryngeal endoscopic examination in the elderly population.

METHODS

This randomized prospective study carried out in a tertiary reference center. TORLE or TNFFL were performed to patients who were over 65 years at their first visit according to randomization list. At their second visit, other method was performed. Patients' physiological parameters (Systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate (HR), and oxygen (O₂) saturation before and immediately after laryngeal examination were recorded. Patients' pain-irritation, gag reflex, and dyspnea status were evaluated using visual analog scale after first and second endoscopic examinations. Further patient preferences for TORLE and TNFFL were recorded.

RESULTS

Of 96 patients included in the study, 69.8% (n = 67) preferred TORLE while 30.2% (n = 29) preferred TNFFL. Major factor influencing patient preferences was pain-irritation in TNFFL. Pain-irritation scores were significantly higher in TNFFL than those in TORLE (p < 0.001). However, no significant difference was found between two methods with respect to gag reflex and dyspnea scores (p = 0.194, p = 0.327, respectively). In TORLE, there was no statistically significant difference between the values measured before and after examination in terms of SBP, DBP, HR, and O₂ saturation (p = 0.641, p = 0.134, p = 0.119, p = 0.414, respectively). However, in TNFFL, statistically significant decrease was observed after examination in HR and O₂ saturation (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

TORLE is more suitable for laryngeal examination in elderly patients since it is more comfortable for patient and does not change physiological parameters.

Transnasal Flexible Laryngoscopy Using Different Topical Preparations and Methods of Application-A Randomized Study

BACKGROUND

The field of laryngology has grown exponentially since the advent of the transnasal flexible laryngoscopy. Flexible laryngoscopy when performed skillfully using the proper technique, facilitates a good view of the hidden areas of the larynx.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of the topical agents in providing a more comfortable experience for the patient, allowing the practitioner to advance the endoscope with less friction, pain and discomfort for the patient using 10% lidocaine spray, 2% lidocaine gel, 4% lidocaine with xylometazoline (1:1) soaked pledgets, or aqueous gel.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective randomized single-blinded clinical trial was conducted in a tertiary care teaching hospital in South India where 376 patients were recruited and allocated into four groups based on the topical preparation used. Following endoscopy, each subject filled a questionnaire grading their experience on a visual analogue scale. The clinician also then answered a questionnaire on aspects of the endoscopy performed.

RESULTS

The pain score and the ease of performing the procedure among the different groups were comparable. Those in the 10% lidocaine arm experienced significant burning sensation (P = 0.0001). The other variables such as throat pain (P = 0.783), gag reflex (P = 0.318), unpleasant taste (P = 0.092), globus (P = 0.190), swallowing difficulty after the procedure (P = 0.273), difficulty in breathing (P = 0.744) and willingness to have a repeat procedure (P = 0.883) were also comparable.

CONCLUSION

Aqueous gel can be used topically during a flexible nasopharyngolaryngoscopy instead of an anesthetic agent alone or one combined with a nasal decongestant.

Effect of Hypertonic Saline during Flexible Nasopharyngeal Laryngoscopy: A Double-Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

Flexible nasopharyngeal laryngoscopy (NPL) is a cost-effective, simple procedure that provides visualization of the nasal airways. However, it involves a number of challenges for both the clinician and the patient. Hypertonic saline nasal wash is used to prevent nasal secretion in acute/chronic sinusitis and after nasal surgery. We aimed to determine the efficacy of hypertonic saline by comparing the clinician's and patients' experiences during NPL.

METHODS

This prospective, double-blinded, randomized, controlled study was performed at a tertiary referral university hospital. Two hundred patients were randomly divided into hypertonic saline, lidocaine, xylometazoline, and isotonic saline groups. During NPL, the clinician's experiences in terms of the quality of the field of view and the patients' experiences in terms of pain and discomfort resulting from the 4 premedication drugs were compared.

RESULTS

The groups differed significantly in terms of the clinician's field of view, and patients' pain scores and levels of discomfort (P < 0.025). The field of view results were the highest in the hypertonic saline group, and the lowest in the lidocaine group. The pain scores were the lowest in the lidocaine group, whereas they were the highest in the hypertonic saline group. The discomfort scores were the lowest in the xylometazoline group, but the highest in the lidocaine and isotonic saline groups.

CONCLUSION

The use of hypertonic saline facilitated the NPL procedure by improving the clinician's field of view. Moreover, intranasal hypertonic saline reduced the patient's discomfort. Intranasal hypertonic saline can be a good alternative to premedication before NPL.

Comparison of two routes in nasal passage for transnasale flexible fiberoptic laryngoscopy

PURPOSE

Present study compares two routes in nasal passage for transnasal flexible fiberoptic laryngoscopy (TNFFL).

METHODS

Included in the study were 60 patients who were split equally into Group 1 and Group 2 and all underwent TNFFL. The tip of endoscope was introduced between the septum and inferior turbinate along the nasal floor in Group 1 and between the inferior turbinate and middle turbinate in Group 2. O₂ saturation, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure of patients were taken 30 min before and immediately after procedure. Patients were asked to rate the pain-irritation, gag reflex, dyspnea they experienced during procedure using visual analogue scale. Two routes were compared in terms of physiological effects and patient comfort.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference was found between two groups in terms of physiological effects or patient comfort. When values recorded immediately after procedure were compared with baseline values, a significant decrease was observed in O₂ saturation and heart rate in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively. No clinically detectable symptoms were observed in the patients.

CONCLUSION

Decreases in O₂ saturation and heart rate may be regarded as physiological effects of TNFFL. No significant difference between two routes was noted in the present study in terms of physiological effects and patient comfort during TNFFL. Introducing the endoscope between the inferior and middle turbinates may be a comfortable and safe option, particularly if the endoscope cannot be advanced along the nasal floor due to septum deviation, septal crest, inferior turbinate hypertrophy.

A randomised controlled trial assessing the efficacy of co-phenylcaine nasal spray in flexible transnasal pharyngolaryngoscopy

INTRODUCTION The aim of this study was to assess whether using co-phenylcaine nasal spray before flexible transnasal pharyngolaryngoscopy results in reduced pain and discomfort during the procedure. METHODS This was a randomised controlled trial. Eighty-four patients were randomised to receive either co-phenylcaine nasal spray or placebo nasal spray before performing transnasal flexible pharyngolaryngoscopy. Patient reported outcome measures included pain, discomfort, unpleasantness and willingness to repeat the procedure while clinician reported outcome measures comprised ease of examination and quality of view obtained during the procedure. RESULTS There was no statistically significant difference in scores for pain, discomfort, unpleasantness and willingness to repeat the procedure between the co-phenylcaine and placebo groups. On the other hand, ease of examination scores were significantly better for the co-phenylcaine group than for the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS The majority of patients do not find flexible pharyngolaryngoscopy unpleasant or painful with or without topical nasal anaesthesia. However, the spray does appear to help the examiner in completing a satisfactory assessment.

Assessing the safety and efficacy of drugs used in preparing the nose for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Local anaesthetics and vasoconstrictors are essential for pain control and to aid intra-operative haemostasis in nasal procedures. They also improve access, and reduce discomfort when performing nasal endoscopy. There are no clear guidelines on preparing the nose despite evermore diagnostic and therapeutic procedures utilising the nose as a point of access.

OBJECTIVE OF REVIEW

This review aims to identify nasal preparations used in diagnostic and therapeutic nasal procedures and to examine their safety and efficacy.

TYPE OF REVIEW

Systematic review.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A search was carried out using PubMed, MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, the Cochrane library and references from the included articles.

EVALUATION METHOD

The inclusion criteria included: full-text English language articles with regard to nasal preparation for surgery. Case reports, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, double-blind placebo controlled randomised trials (RCTs) and case series were included.

RESULTS

A total of 53 articles were retrieved: 13 articles on nasal preparation for operative procedures, six on functional endoscopic sinus surgery and 22 on nasendoscopy as well as six case reports. Cocaine was the most widely used topical preparation for operative procedures but was associated with more side-effects; thus, topical tetracaine and levobupivacaine infiltration are alternatives with equivalent efficacy but reduced adverse effects. All articles reviewed for functional endoscopic sinus surgery used a mixture containing lidocaine, adrenaline or both. Flexible nasendoscopy causes minimal patient discomfort and preparation is only recommended in selected patients, in contrast to rigid nasendoscopy which requires preparation.

CONCLUSION

For operative procedures, such as septorhinoplasty, a single agent tetracaine or levobupivicaine provides an improved surgical field. In functional endoscopic sinus surgery, lidocaine-adrenaline preparations have resulted in significantly better surgical and patient outcomes. There is little evidence to support the routine use of pre-procedural nasal preparation for flexible nasendoscopy. Those undergoing rigid endoscopy conversely always require the use of a vasoconstrictor and local anaesthetic. Pre-procedure assessment of patients is recommended, with agents being reserved for those with low pain thresholds, high anxiety and small nasal apertures presenting resistance to the insertion of the endoscope.

Rigid or flexible laryngoscope: The preference of children

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of flexible and rigid endoscopes using a visual analog scale and reveal which one is better tolerated by children.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The pediatric patients with voice disorders examined between July 2012 and October 2014 were included the study. Patients to whom endoscopic visualization had been applied several times were recalled for information about their preference of scope. No local anesthetics were used before both procedures. Pain sensation, gag reflex or vomiting and dyspnea or breathiness were evaluated and graded using a visual analog scale (VAS).

RESULTS

A total of 35 patients (77.1% males, 22.9% females) with a median age of 11.3±1.8 years (range, 7-15 years) were analyzed. Group 1 consisted of patients who preferred videolaryngostroboscopy (VLS) and Group 2 consisted of patients who preferred flexible fiberoptic nasopharyngoscopy (FFN). Overall, 28 (80%) of the patients preferred videolaryngostroboscopy (VLS) while 7 (20%) of the patients preferred FFN examination. In these examinations 20 patients (57.1%) felt pain, 17 (48.6%) felt irritation, 5 (14.3%) had gag reflex, and 2 (5.7%) had dyspnea. According to this data, the VLS (VAS) scores regarding gag reflex (p=0.017) and dyspnea domains (p=0.022) of the group who preferred FFL were statistically higher than those of the VLS group. No statistically significant difference was determined between the genders in respect of the VLS and FFL scores in all domains. Pain and irritation were the most prominent findings in patients who were reluctant to be examined by FFL. Irritation was statistically significantly higher in Group 1 (p=0.004). Gag reflex was the most disturbing finding described by patients who were reluctant to be examined by VLS.

CONCLUSION

In this study, most of the children (80%) preferred rigid laryngoscopy rather than flexible fiberoptic laryngoscopy. Pain and irritation were the most prominent findings for patients who were reluctant to be examined by FFL. Rigid laryngoscopy can be recommended rather than FFN for evaluation of children with vocal fold pathologies.

Swallowing dysfunction after critical illness

Critical care practitioners must frequently make decisions about their patients' ability to swallow food, liquids, and pills. These decisions can be particularly difficult given the incompletely defined epidemiology, diagnostic criteria, and prognostic features of swallowing disorders in critically ill patients. Furthermore, the consequences of improper decisions-namely, aspiration, malnutrition, hunger, and thirst-can be devastating to patients and their families. This review outlines the problem of swallowing dysfunction in critically ill patients and then addresses the most clinically relevant questions that critical care practitioners face today. First, we review the epidemiology of swallowing dysfunction in critically ill patients. Next, we describe the different diagnostic tests for swallowing dysfunction and describe a general approach to the initial assessment for swallowing disorders. Finally, we explore the existing treatments for swallowing dysfunction. Given the burden of swallowing dysfunction in patients recovering from critical illness, enabling critical care practitioners to manage these disorders, while stimulating new investigation into their pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management, will enhance our care of critically ill patients.

Effect of Lidocaine on Swallowing During FEES in Patients With Dysphagia

PURPOSE

The aims of this study were to assess the effects of 0.2 mL of 4% atomized lidocaine on swallowing and tolerability during Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES).

METHODS

A single blinded study was conducted with 17 dysphagic patients, who received 4 standardized boluses in 2 sequential FEES exams under 2 conditions: non-anesthetized (decongestant only) and anesthetized (lidocaine 4%+decongestant). After each procedure, patients rated their pain on the Wong Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale. Clinicians scored each swallow with the Penetration Aspiration Scale (PAS) and an author-developed Residue Rating Scale. Because the assessments were ordinal, a series of Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were conducted to detect differences between the 2 conditions.

RESULTS

No significant differences were detected between groups on PAS or residue in the 4 boluses. Pain scores, however, were significantly lower in the anesthetized condition than the decongested-only condition (P=.035).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study indicated that 0.2 mL of 4% lidocaine enhanced exam tolerability and did not impair the swallow in dysphagic patients.

Use of topical nasal anesthesia during flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing in dysphagic patients

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the effect of topical lidocaine on Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS) scores and patient comfort and tolerance of flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) examinations in dysphagic patients.

METHODS

Adults with dysphagia referred for swallowing evaluation were recruited to participate in consecutive nonanesthetized and then anesthetized FEES examinations. Under endoscopic visualization, participants consumed 6 swallows consisting of graduated volumes of milk, pudding, and cracker in each condition and recorded their discomfort and tolerance in the 2 conditions. Penetration-Aspiration Scale scores were assigned in blinded fashion for each swallow.

RESULTS

Twenty-five adults participated in the study. Although there was no statistically significant effect of anesthesia on PAS scores (P=.065), the odds of a higher PAS score were 33% higher during anesthetized swallows. The anesthetized condition yielded significantly less discomfort and pain during the examination, significantly less pain and discomfort during insertion and removal of the endoscope, and significantly greater overall tolerance than the nonanesthetized condition.

CONCLUSION

The use of topical lidocaine during FEES may impair swallowing ability in patients with dysphagia, but this result does not achieve statistical significance. Topical nasal anesthesia significantly reduces subjective pain and discomfort and improves tolerance during FEES.

Topical anesthetic preparations for rigid and flexible endoscopy: a meta-analysis

Transnasal endoscopy can cause pain or discomfort for the patient. Topical anesthetic has been used in an attempt to reduce this. However, there is no consensus on whether topical anesthetic is effective in optimizing patient experience during the procedure. The goal of this study was to perform a systematic review with meta-analysis of the efficacy of topical anesthetic on pain and comfort outcomes during endoscopy. Two authors independently searched the databases from inception to September 2013. Studies comparing topical anesthetic with placebo where the outcomes of interest were pain, comfort, or side effect outcomes were included. Sufficient data for meta-analysis were retrieved for ten trials with a total of 837 patients. The evidence suggests that local anesthetic alone or in combination with a vasoconstrictor is beneficial to patients' pain [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.21; p = 0.045] and comfort (SMD = -0.51; p < 0.001) outcomes when performing transnasal endoscopy. However, the topical anesthetic caused unpleasant sensation with respect to an unpleasant taste (SMD = 0.77; p < 0.001). In addition, there was no significant difference between a topical anesthetic spray and cotton type in pain and discomfort values. Applying topical anesthetic during transnasal endoscopy could reduce pain and discomfort. The spray and cotton type methods of topical anesthetic preparation showed no significant difference in terms of pain and discomfort during the procedure. However, further trials with good research methodology should be conducted to confirm our results.

Patient-related and ENT-related predictive factors based on the pain experienced during flexible nasendoscopy

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

The objective was to explore the role of specific patient-related and operator-related factors in pain perception during flexible laryngoscopy, which is one of the most common ENT procedures.

STUDY DESIGN

Monocentric, randomized, individual prospective study.

METHODS

A total of 532 patients (145 men and 387 women), without any relevant ENT diseases, underwent laryngoscopy performed by otolaryngologists with various degrees of experience. Patient discomfort was reported using visual analog scores, and willingness to repeat the experience was also recorded.

RESULTS

Statistical analysis showed that greater pain was significantly associated with female patients and female otolaryngologists, whereas the pain was less severe in the cases of experienced laryngologists and older patients. Pain plays an important role in determining the willingness to repeat the examination; in fact, patients who experienced lower levels of pain during laryngoscopy were more prone to repeat the experience.

CONCLUSION

This article explores the importance of the extrinsic factors that are related to the patient and the otolaryngologist in determining the level of pain associated with laryngoscopy. Our study indicated that laryngoscopy is generally a well-tolerated procedure, causing little overall discomfort, but that a subgroup of patients may experience more pain than others, which may affect the patient's perspective toward undergoing a similar future experience. Our analysis may be helpful for clinicians in understanding pain perception during a routine procedure, enabling them to focus more on that subgroup of patients who are more prone to pain.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1b.

Effects of topical nasal anesthetic on fiberoptic endoscopic examination of swallowing with sensory testing (FEESST)

Objections to the use of topical nasal anesthesia (TNA) during fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) with sensory testing (FEESST) have been raised, primarily because of the possibility of desensitizing the pharyngeal and laryngeal mucosa and affecting both the sensory and motor aspects of the swallow. Furthermore, it has been suggested that TNA is not necessary during FEES as it does not improve patient comfort or make the procedure easier for the endoscopist. The purpose of this double-blind, randomized, controlled, crossover clinical trial was to determine how gel TNA during flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing with sensory testing affects sensation, swallowing, and comfort rating scores in healthy non-dysphagic participants. Laryngopharyngeal sensory thresholds and swallowing durations were compared between two conditions: TNA and sham. Transition duration decreased statistically significantly during the TNA condition compared to the sham for 10 ml only (p < 0.05). All other swallowing measures did not change between the conditions. Laryngopharyngeal sensory thresholds and perceptions did not change between conditions. No change was observed for subject comfort scores, ease of exam, or quality of view. Future studies should evaluate TNA administration variables, including concentration, dosage amount, and method of application, to determine the optimal strategy for providing comfort while avoiding altered swallowing.

A double-blind randomised controlled trial assessing the efficacy of topical lidocaine in extended flexible endoscopic nasal examinations

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that using lidocaine nasal spray will result in improved pain and comfort outcomes during an extended flexible endoscopic nasal examination.

DESIGN

A split-body, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial. After receiving a rinse of oral mouthwash (Listerine(®)), patients were randomised to receive placebo in one nasal cavity and 30 mg of topical lidocaine in the other.

SETTING

A tertiary care centre outpatient Otolaryngology clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-two patients who required an extended bilateral flexible endoscopic nasal examination. An extended nasal examination consisted of an examination of a minimum of two osteomeatal regions on each side of the nasal cavity.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Discomfort and pain were assessed using a 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Our study utilised the definition of pain based on International Association for the Study of Pain. Pain was defined as an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage. Discomfort was defined as the overall unpleasant experience of the procedure. This included all aspects of the examination such as the pain or other negative sensations associated with the examination, any side effects associated with the application of the nasal sprays as well as any anxiety associated with the examination. A Wilcoxon sign-rank test was used for the primary outcome measures.

RESULTS

There was a significant reduction in discomfort scores on the treatment side of the nasal cavity compared with the control side (median VAS score of 18.6 mm versus 44.6 mm; P = 0.01). The change in pain between the treatment side compared with the control side did not reach our definition of statistical significance (5.1 mm versus 9.2 mm; P = 0.05). Patients with an active or uncontrolled inflammatory disorder of the nasal cavity experienced a significantly greater reduction in pain compared to those without an inflammatory condition (median change of the VAS score, -15.6 versus +1.0; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

After a rinse with oral mouthwash, the use of lidocaine results in a significant reduction in the discomfort associated with an extended bilateral flexible endoscopic nasal examination. Patients undergoing such an examination would benefit from the application of lidocaine after masking the negative flavour using oral mouthwash.

The physiologic impact of transnasal flexible endoscopy

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Diagnostic transnasal flexible endoscopy (TNFE) is a commonly used office procedure in otolaryngology. Currently there is a paucity of data on the impact of TNFE on physiologic parameters. This is relevant with the advent of office-based endoscopic procedures. The goal of this study is to measure the impact of topical decongestion, anesthesia, and diagnostic TNFE on vital signs: systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate (HR), and oxygenation (O(2) sat).

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective case control study, in which the patient is his/her control.

METHODS

Vital signs were obtained at baseline, immediately after the application of Neosynephrine, after the application of lidocaine, 5 minutes later, with the scope in the nasopharynx and hypopharynx, and upon completion of the procedure.

RESULTS

Compared to the baseline data, there was a statistically significant increase in HR after the procedure (mean change, 4.06 ± 10.15 bpm; range, -14 to 42 bpm, P = .01). There was also a change in O(2) sat (mean change, 0.42% ± 1.36%; range -3% to 3%, P = .03) after the application of lidocaine. When comparing each data point to the preceding point, there was a statistically significant change in SBP with the scope in the nasopharynx (mean change, 5.34 ± 10.65 mm Hg; range, -22 to 28 mm Hg, P = .001) and in HR with the scope in the hypopharynx (mean change, 3.76 ± 6.41 bpm; range, -9 to 19 bpm, P = .0004).

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic TNFE and topical lidocaine can have an impact on physiologic parameters; however, these changes are unlikely to be clinically significant.

Assessment of nasal fibroscopy to explore olfactory cleft

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether flexible nasoendoscopy can be used to visualize all parts of the olfactory cleft (OC) without morbidity.

STUDY DESIGN

Single-center, prospective, observational study.

SETTING

French tertiary referral center.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

100 consecutive patients were divided in 2 groups of 50. Group 1 underwent nasal fibroscopy without vasoconstriction or local anesthesia with an endosheath- protected endoscope. Group 2 was examined by a fiberscope without an endosheath after application of naphazoline Xylocaine. Each OC was divided in 16 items recorded as visualized or not. Four scores were compared between both groups: out of 16 (1 side), out of 32 (both sides), out of 12 concerning only the narrowest and highest bilateral spaces, and out of 4 to divide these specific areas in anterior, middle, and posterior parts. Length of procedure, pain, epistaxis, blood mark on the endosheath, sneezing, rhinorrhea, and causes of failure were recorded.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between both groups concerning score out of 16 or 32. The visibility of the narrower and higher spaces was better in group 2: scores out of 12 were significantly different between the groups (P = .025), as were scores out of 4 for the anterior and middle parts of the OC (P = .02 and .01 respectively). Morbidity was low without differences between the groups. Deviated nasal septum was the only cause of failure and increased the patients' pain during the examination (P = .045).

CONCLUSION

Nasal fibroscopy could be used to explore the different portions of the OC efficiently and with low morbidity.

Topical anaesthetic or vasoconstrictor preparations for flexible fibre-optic nasal pharyngoscopy and laryngoscopy

BACKGROUND

Nasal pharyngolaryngoscopy (NPL) is performed as an outpatient and inpatient procedure on a daily basis, for a variety of indications. It frequently causes some degree of discomfort to the patient. Various different topical agents, which are intended to reduce this discomfort, are in common use. This review aimed to assess the effectiveness of the various agents.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of topical preparations used to reduce discomfort and facilitate NPL in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ISRCTN and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 14 April 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) looking at the effect of topical anaesthetic or vasoconstrictor agents used reduce discomfort and facilitate NPL in adult patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for further information where necessary. The primary outcome measured was pain/discomfort. Secondary outcomes that were looked at included side effects of the topical medications, ease of the procedure and the quality of the view from the operator's perspective.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs (746 participants) in the review. The risk of bias in the studies was generally low. Five studies did not demonstrate any advantage in using a topical treatment prior to endoscopy. One study suggested that a vasoconstrictor alone should be used to reduce the general level of unpleasantness. Two studies did not compare treatment against placebo or no treatment, so it was not possible to draw meaningful conclusions from them. There may be some unpleasant side effects from the use of topical preparations, such as unpleasant taste.There was variation in the format of the outcome data and a lack of complete data; none of the included studies reported their results in a way that would allow pooling and we could not therefore perform meta-analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The included studies do not demonstrate any evidence to support the use of topical treatments prior to the use of a fibre-optic nasal endoscope. Some go as far as to suggest that these agents should not be used due to cost and unpleasant side effects. Five studies did not demonstrate any advantage in terms of reducing pain or discomfort when using a topical treatment prior to endoscopy. The absence of demonstrable effect may be due to relatively small patient groups. It is therefore possible that there is a small effect of using these sprays. Further research using standardised reporting methods is needed.

Comparison of Co-phenylcaine Spray or Lidocaine/Epinephrine Nasal Packing for Flexible Laryngoscopy

Background

Nasal preparation prior to flexible laryngoscopy is a common ENT practice. Co-phenylcaine is increasingly used because it is safe and has both anaesthetic and vasoconstrictive properties. Lidocaine 4% and epinephrine 1:1000 nasal packing is another method used in our department.

Methods

A prospective case series was performed on eighty-one patients requiring flexible laryngoscopy. Patients were enrolled into either a co-phenylcaine or a lidocaine/epinephrine packing group. Visual analogue scales (VAS) were used to record unpleasantness of nasal preparation and flexible laryngoscopy. Decongestion and ease of endoscope passage were recorded by the doctors.

Results

Bad taste was statistically significantly worse when using cophenylcaine for nasal preparation ( P = 0.001). However, there was no statistically significant difference in overall unpleasantness from nasal preparation or from subsequent flexible laryngoscopy between the two groups. There was no statistically significant difference in degree of decongestion or ease of endoscope passage between the two groups.

Conclusion

There is no statistically significant advantage of using cophenylcaine spray over non-proprietary lidocaine 4% and epinephrine 1:1000 nasal packing. However cost and bad taste is less with nasal packing.

A comparison of xylometazoline (Otrivine) and phenylephrine/lignocaine mixture (Cophenylcaine) for the purposes of rigid nasendoscopy: a prospective, double-blind, randomised trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate if phenylephrine-lignocaine mixture (Cophenylcaine) nasal spray performs better than xylometazoline (Otrivine) spray for the purposes of out-patient rigid nasendoscopy preparation.

DESIGN

Prospective, double-blind, randomised trial comparing visual analogue scores for out-patients receiving either phenylephrine-lignocaine mixture or xylometazoline, prior to undergoing rigid nasendoscopy as part of their assessment.

SUBJECTS

Seventy-three patients requiring rigid nasendoscopy as part of their assessment were recruited to the study from Raigmore Hospital's out-patient clinic. These patients were randomised to receive a nasal spray comprising either phenylephrine-lignocaine mixture or xylometazoline, 10 minutes prior to rigid nasendoscopy. Double-blinding was adopted. After the procedure, the patient and the doctor independently completed separate visual analogue score-based questionnaires regarding the pain of the procedure and the ease of the examination, respectively.

RESULTS

Analysis of the data using standardised statistical methods demonstrated that the phenylephrine-lignocaine mixture did not perform better than xylometazoline, to any statistically significant extent.

CONCLUSION

Phenylephrine-lignocaine mixture is considerably more expensive and has potentially more side effects than xylometazoline. These study findings suggest that it is difficult to justify the use of phenylephrine-lignocaine mixture over xylometazoline, for nasal preparation prior to rigid nasendoscopy.

Nasal and instrument preparation prior to rigid and flexible nasendoscopy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Examination of the upper aerodigestive tract is an important part of ENT practice. The use of both flexible and rigid nasendoscopes is the most common way of achieving this in the out-patient setting. However, these procedures can cause pain or discomfort for the patient, and topical preparations have been used in an attempt to reduce this.

OBJECTIVES

The variability in current practice amongst those performing nasendoscopy may suggest an uncertainty as to what constitutes best practice for this procedure. A systematic review of the literature was undertaken in an attempt to clarify this.

METHODS

A literature search of the Cochrane ENT group trials register, the Cochrane central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL (1982-2007), MEDLINE (1950-2007) and EMBASE (1974-2007) was performed. Reference lists of selected studies were scanned for additional research material.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies relevant to this review were identified. The evidence suggests that local anaesthetic is not beneficial when performing flexible nasendoscopy, neither alone nor in combination with a vasoconstrictor. Water is better than lubricant for flexible endoscope passage and gives a superior optical outcome. Further research is required on the use of endosheaths for flexible and rigid nasendoscopy.

Endoscopic-guided versus cotton-tipped applicator methods of nasal anesthesia for transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a randomized, prospective, controlled study

BACKGROUND

Ultrathin transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy (UT-EGD) is well tolerated by patients, but the methods of nasal anesthesia are various.

AIM

To compare patient tolerance, safety, and adverse events between the endoscopic-guided (EGNA) and cotton-tipped applicator (CTNA) methods of nasal anesthesia.

METHODS

Between September 2005 and September 2006, we conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled study in a large tertiary referral hospital in eastern Taiwan. In total, 235 consecutive patients were randomly assigned to the CTNA group or EGNA group before unsedated UT-EGD. We compared demographic data, procedural discomfort using a validated 5-point visual analog scale, optical quality, total procedure time, and adverse events between the two groups.

RESULTS

After randomization and exclusion, 101 (43 men and 58 women) and 103 (44 men and 59 women) patients were allocated to the CTNA and EGNA groups, respectively. Baseline characteristics and periprocedural hemodynamics of patients in the two groups were similar. There was no statistical difference in insertion failure rates between the two methods (CTNA 10.9%vs EGNA 7.7%, P= 0.59). Pain scores during both anesthesia (2.3 +/- 0.4 vs 3.5 +/- 0.6, P < 0.001) and insertion (2.8 +/- 1.2 vs 3.8 +/- 1.8, P < 0.001) were significantly lower in the EGNA group; however, the sensation of bad taste was significantly worse in the EGNA group (2.3 +/- 1.3 vs 1.9 +/- 1.4, P= 0.040). Less epistaxis happened in the EGNA group than in the CTNA group. The EGNA method had a significantly better visual capacity and shorter procedure time. More patients in the EGNA group said they would like to receive the same procedure the next time.

CONCLUSION

Compared with the CTNA method, in which the taste of lidocaine gel was more acceptable, EGNA appeared to be more tolerable, caused less epistaxis, improved visualization capacity, and reduced procedure time.

A randomized controlled trial: is water better than a standard lubricant in nasendoscopy?

OBJECTIVES

Previous studies have shown that nasendoscopy is made easier with the use of lubrication at the expense of the quality of the view obtained, but had no effect on the discomfort or pain experienced by the patient. We set out to determine whether the advantages of lubrication with a standard lubricant (KY Jelly) could be achieved by using water, without incurring the same disadvantages.

DESIGN

Single blind randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Outpatient Departments at two District General Hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred and fifty participants selected sequentially from patients requiring a nasendoscopy where the endoscope would be passed far enough to view the larynx. Patients requiring topical anaesthetic were excluded.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to have either water or standard lubricant applied to the nasendosope prior to nasendoscopy. Levels of pain experienced by the patient were recorded on a visual analogue score as well as visual analogue scores from the clinician for the levels of difficulty in passing the endoscope. All participants who were entered the study completed the study. Endoscopy was performed by all grades of medical staff.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Levels of pain experienced by the participants were assessed by a visual analogue scale. Difficulty of passing the scope was indicated by the endoscopist using a visual analogue scale, as was the quality of image obtained.

RESULTS

Endoscopists found the insertion of the endoscope was easier and the image better when water was used rather than KY Jelly. There was no significant difference in reported in levels of pain experienced by the patient.

CONCLUSION

Although the use of water as a lubricant during nasendoscopy confers no additional benefit in term of the levels of pain suffered by patients during the procedure, it makes the insertion of the endoscope easier and provides a better quality image than standard lubrication.

Pain perception of children undergoing nasendoscopy for investigation of voice and resonance disorders

The primary objective of this descriptive and correlational study was to determine the level of pain and discomfort perceived by children undergoing nasendoscopy for investigation of voice and resonance disorders. The secondary objective was to explore whether gender, age, previous experience of painful or distressing medical procedures, and previous experience of nasendoscopy influenced the perception of pain during nasendoscopy. Twenty-three children self-reported the degree of pain perceived during nasendoscopy using the Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale. Parents also used this scale to rate their child's perceived pain. Otolaryngologists and speech pathologists rated the intensity and frequency of observed pain-related behaviors using the Child-Adult Medical Procedure Interaction Scale-Revised and the Procedure Behavior Checklist. Children perceived the procedure, on average, to be moderately painful, as did their parents. Only two children reported perceiving no pain during the procedure. The most frequently observed pain-related behaviors were muscle tension (86.96%), physical resistance (69.57%), requiring physical restraint (60.87%), crying (43.48%), and expressions of verbal pain (39.13%). No significant correlations were found between self-reported pain or observed pain and the variables of age, gender, previous experience of nasendoscopy, and previous experience of painful or distressing medical procedures, although children aged 4-7 years reported significantly more pain than children aged 8-18 years. Most children perceive nasendoscopy to be painful to some degree. This perceived pain occurred in conjunction with several observable pain-related behaviors that have the potential to interfere with the success of the procedure.

Is topical local anaesthesia necessary when performing paediatric flexible nasendoscopy? A double-blind randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of lignocain 2% and oxymetazoline 0.025% compared to oxymetazoline 0.025% alone when administered prior to fibreoptic nasendoscopy in paediatric patients.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized controlled, double-blind study. A group of 56 children, undergoing nasendoscopy to determine adenoidal size, were randomized into two groups and received either lignocain 2% and oxymetazoline 0.025% or oxymetazoline 0.025% alone prior to fibreoptic nasendoscopy.

SETTING

A tertiary care Paediatric Hospital.

METHOD

The endoscopist recorded the ease of performance of the procedure, cooperation of patient and quality of the view achieved using a visual analogue scale (VAS). The pain and anxiety levels of the child were recorded before, during and immediately after the procedure, using a VAS. The duration of performing the procedure was recorded from insertion of the endoscope into the nostril until removal.

RESULTS

All 56 children were able to undergo the endoscopy and the full anxiety and pain assessment was done. Three children were excluded because they have undergone nasendoscopies before. Of the 53 patients included, 27 children received solution A (oxymetazoline 0.025%) and 26 children received solution B (oxymetazoline 0.025% and lignocain 2%). There was no statistical difference between the two groups regarding the duration of the endoscopy, quality of view, ease of performance and cooperation of the patients. The median pain and anxiety scores were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study concludes that the use of a decongestant (oxymetazoline) for paediatric nasendoscopy is just as effective as the use of oxymetazoline with lignocain. Pain and anxiety is not increased in the absence of lignocain.

Topical anaesthesia before nasendoscopy: a randomized controlled trial of co-phenylcaine compared with lignocaine

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relative effectiveness of co-phenylcaine (lignocaine 5% with phenylephrine) and lignocaine 5% sprays when administered prior to rigid nasendoscopy.

DESIGN

Randomized, double blind controlled study.

SETTING

Teaching hospital otolaryngology unit.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty patients requiring routine outpatient rigid nasendoscopy were administered five puffs of either co-phenylcaine or lignocaine 5% spray which had been randomly assigned to either the first or the second visit. Ten minutes later nasendoscopy was performed. Immediately after nasendoscopy the ease of performance of the procedure and the quality of the view achieved was rated on a visual analogue scale by the endoscopist and the patients recorded the level of pain experienced on a visual analogue scale. Two weeks later, the patients returned for a repeat nasendoscopy, receiving the alternate spray.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Ease of performance and quality of view of achieved by endoscopists and pain experienced by patients, both measured with visual analogue scales.

RESULTS

The ease of passage of the endoscope and quality of the view obtained was found to be greater after the administration of co-phenylcaine [visual analogue scores 84 (95% CI: 80-89) than after lignocaine and 77 (95% CI: 73-81) (P < 0.01)]. The two sprays produced similar levels of topical anaesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

Nasendoscopy can be performed with minimal discomfort after the administration of either co-phenylcaine or lignocaine 5% sprays. The vasoconstricting action of co-phenylcaine increases the ease of passage of the endoscope and quality of the view obtained by the endoscopist.

Effects of topical anesthetic and flexible fiberoptic laryngoscopy on professional sopranos

This study examined the acoustic and perceptual effects of topical anesthetic and flexible fiberoptic laryngoscopy (FFL) against a control condition on the singing voices of ten professional sopranos. Recordings of a section of an aria, various scales, and a messa di voce exercise were obtained in the three experimental conditions. Acoustic analyses of the same aria section recorded during the three conditions were similar with respect to the distribution of energy across the spectrum (LTAS) and vibrato rate and extent. The ability of the participants to achieve their highest and lowest notes or to complete the messa di voce was also not affected by the anesthetic or FFL. Perceptual ratings of a variety of parameters by experienced singing teachers also revealed little difference across conditions with only "appropriate velopharyngeal closure" found to differ in one comparison. These results indicate that highly experienced operatic sopranos are either not affected by or appear to have the ability to compensate for the presence of anesthetic and the FFL. The most likely explanation is that this group of singers relied on a solid vocal technique. Results will need to be replicated on less accomplished singers before concluding that this medical procedure does not affect the operatic singing voice.

Cophenylcaine spray vs. placebo in flexible nasendoscopy: a prospective double-blind randomised controlled trial

Practices vary across the UK on the use of topical preparation prior to flexible fibreoptic nasendoscopy. In this double-blind study, we randomised 98 patients to receive cophenylcaine or placebo nasal spray before flexible nasendoscopy. A visual analogue scale (1-100) was used to record pain, unpleasantness of taste and overall discomfort experienced. Overall, the procedure was associated with minimal pain and discomfort in both groups. There was no significant difference in pain or overall discomfort experienced between the two groups; however, the sensation of bad taste was significantly worse in the cophenylcaine group. In linear regression, factors that predicted the overall unpleasantness of the experience were primarily pain experienced and secondarily unpleasantness of taste. We conclude that the routine use of cophenylcaine for nasal preparation is not justified before flexible nasendoscopy.

Fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Approximately 8 million people in the United States report some degree of dysphagia annually; as the population continues to age, this will become a greater problem. A comprehensibly performed and interpreted fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing provides invaluable information for the evaluation and management of individuals with dysphagia or aspiration, or both.

STUDY DESIGN

Review.

METHODS

The state-of-the-art technique, interpretation, predictive value, and safety of fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing was reviewed.

The use of topical nasal anaesthesia before flexible nasendoscopy: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing cophenylcaine with placebo

The objective was to evaluate the necessity to use topical nasal anaesthesia before flexible nasendoscopy and to compare its use with placebo. The study was carried out using a double-blind randomized controlled trial, with three treatment arms, at the out-patient department at Raigmore Hospital, Inverness. The participants were 90 patients attending the otolaryngology out-patient department who required flexible nasendoscopy as part of their assessment. Each participant was randomized to one of three groups. Group 1 received cophenylcaine spray, group 2 received a placebo spray, and group 3 received no nasal preparation. Flexible nasendoscopy was carried out via a stated protocol and the patient's diagnosis and findings were discussed in the usual way. After the consultation, the patient filled in a questionnaire marking answers on a visual analogue scale. The main outcome measures were pain and overall unpleasantness of procedure. Patient anxiety and willingness to be examined again in the same way if necessary were also assessed. Ease of examination and quality of view were asked from the operator's perspective. The mean scores on a visual analogue scale showed the main outcome measures to be as follows. Pain score measured 1.7 for cophenylcaine, 2.1 for no spray and 2.2 for placebo. Overall unpleasantness scores were 2.0 for cophenylcaine, 1.9 for no spray and 2.4 for placebo. On a visual analogue scale of 0-10, none of these mean main outcome measures reached levels of significance. It was concluded that the use of cophenylcaine spray before flexible nasendoscopy does not give significant advantages over the use of no nasal preparation.