Decision aid and preference assessment of topical anesthesia for otolaryngology procedures
- PMID: 34401504
- PMCID: PMC8356857
- DOI: 10.1002/lio2.604
Decision aid and preference assessment of topical anesthesia for otolaryngology procedures
Abstract
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.
Keywords: COVID‐19; SARS‐CoV‐2; anesthetics; coronavirus; decision making; local; patient preference; shared; surveys and questionnaires.
© 2021 The Authors. Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Triological Society.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no potential conflict of interest.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Flavored anesthetic lozenge versus Xylocaine spray used as topical pharyngeal anesthesia for unsedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.Surg Endosc. 2010 Apr;24(4):897-901. doi: 10.1007/s00464-009-0687-9. Surg Endosc. 2010. PMID: 19730942 Clinical Trial.
-
A survey of surgical patients' perspectives and preferences towards general anesthesia techniques and shared-decision making.BMC Anesthesiol. 2023 Aug 17;23(1):277. doi: 10.1186/s12871-023-02219-5. BMC Anesthesiol. 2023. PMID: 37592215 Free PMC article.
-
A prospective, randomized, double-blind study comparing the efficacy of topical anesthetics in nasal endoscopy.Laryngoscope. 2013 Apr;123(4):852-8. doi: 10.1002/lary.23966. Epub 2013 Feb 12. Laryngoscope. 2013. PMID: 23404424 Clinical Trial.
-
Topical Anesthesia for Endoscopic Office-based Procedures of the Upper Aerodigestive Tract.J Voice. 2019 Sep;33(5):732-746. doi: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.02.006. Epub 2018 Jul 13. J Voice. 2019. PMID: 30017430 Review.
-
International Society for Gynecologic Endoscopy (ISGE) guidelines and recommendations on gynecological endoscopy during the evolutionary phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020 Oct;253:133-140. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.08.039. Epub 2020 Aug 26. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020. PMID: 32866856 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Saif AM, Farboud A, Delfosse E, Pope L, Adke M. Assessing the safety and efficacy of drugs used in preparing the nose for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures: a systematic review. Clin Otolaryngol. 2016;41(5):546‐563. - PubMed
-
- Young VN, Smith LJ, Rosen CA. Comparison of tolerance and cost‐effectiveness of two nasal anesthesia techniques for transnasal flexible laryngoscopy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;150(4):582‐586. - PubMed
-
- Conlin AE, McLean L. Systematic review and meta‐analysis assessing the effectiveness of local anesthetic, vasoconstrictive, and lubricating agents in flexible fibre‐optic nasolaryngoscopy. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008;37(2):240‐249. - PubMed
-
- Hwang SH, Park CS, Kim BG, Cho JH, Kang JM. Topical anesthetic preparations for rigid and flexible endoscopy: a meta‐analysis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;272:263‐270. - PubMed
-
- Sunkaraneni VS, Jones SE. Topical anaesthetic or vasoconstrictor preparations for flexible fibre‐optic nasal pharyngoscopy and laryngoscopy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;3:CD005606. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials
Miscellaneous