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

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.