OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a smartphone adaptor can record laryngoscopic videos of adequate quality for clinical diagnosis and communication among otolaryngologists and assess the impact of recorded exams on patient satisfaction. METHODS: Twenty adult inpatients undergoing flexible laryngoscopy in a tertiary care medical center were prospectively enrolled. Each subject's larynx was visualized with the standard laryngoscope eyepiece and with an attached mobile phone adaptor with video recording capabilities. A 5-point Likert scale was used by the resident performing the scope to grade the adaptor and eyepiece exams. The same scale was used by an offsite otolaryngology attending to grade the adaptor video. Patients were shown the video, and a satisfaction survey was administered. RESULTS: In all patients, the adaptor was easy to use and required minimal setup. Ninety percent of patients reported an increase in satisfaction after watching the video of their exam. The eyepiece was superior to the adaptor in resolution, focus, color fidelity, brightness, and optical fluidity (P < 0.05). The video recording was deemed sufficient for clinical assessment in 90% of cases. The offsite reviewer determined that there would be "little" (15%) or "no value" (65%) in repeating the scope exam in the majority of patients. The laryngeal subsites were equally visible with the eyepiece and the adaptor ("full view," 85%-100%). CONCLUSION: Laryngoscopy videos recorded by a portable smartphone adaptor are sufficient for clinical evaluation in the majority of cases. This technology may improve patient satisfaction and communication among clinicians. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 129:2147-2152, 2019.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a smartphone adaptor can record laryngoscopic videos of adequate quality for clinical diagnosis and communication among otolaryngologists and assess the impact of recorded exams on patient satisfaction. METHODS: Twenty adult inpatients undergoing flexible laryngoscopy in a tertiary care medical center were prospectively enrolled. Each subject's larynx was visualized with the standard laryngoscope eyepiece and with an attached mobile phone adaptor with video recording capabilities. A 5-point Likert scale was used by the resident performing the scope to grade the adaptor and eyepiece exams. The same scale was used by an offsite otolaryngology attending to grade the adaptor video. Patients were shown the video, and a satisfaction survey was administered. RESULTS: In all patients, the adaptor was easy to use and required minimal setup. Ninety percent of patients reported an increase in satisfaction after watching the video of their exam. The eyepiece was superior to the adaptor in resolution, focus, color fidelity, brightness, and optical fluidity (P < 0.05). The video recording was deemed sufficient for clinical assessment in 90% of cases. The offsite reviewer determined that there would be "little" (15%) or "no value" (65%) in repeating the scope exam in the majority of patients. The laryngeal subsites were equally visible with the eyepiece and the adaptor ("full view," 85%-100%). CONCLUSION: Laryngoscopy videos recorded by a portable smartphone adaptor are sufficient for clinical evaluation in the majority of cases. This technology may improve patient satisfaction and communication among clinicians. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 129:2147-2152, 2019.