Mobile Endoscopy vs Video Tower: A Prospective Comparison of Video Quality and Diagnostic Accuracy. (October 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Liu, Hao; Akiki, Salwa; Barrowman, Nicholas J.; Bromwich, Matthew
• Is Part Of: Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery. Volume 155:Number 4(2016:Oct.)
• Page Start: 575
• Page End: 580
• Publication Date: 2016-10
• Subjects: mobile endoscopy -- mHealth -- cell phone video -- prospective -- ClearScope -- endoscope; Head -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Neck -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Otolaryngology -- Periodicals; 617.51
• DOI: 10.1177/0194599816650637
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0194-5998

Abstract

Objective: To determine if any significant difference exists between endoscopic videos captured with a mobile adaptor and videos captured with a traditional tower. Study Design: Prospective controlled blinded comparison of mobile endoscopic videos captured through 2 methods. Methods: Thirty randomly selected patients underwent video endoscopy with both mobile and video tower recording methods. Sixty videos were edited into a series of 10-second clips. Thirteen otolaryngology staff and residents rated the video quality and provided a diagnosis for each video. Results: We found no significant difference in the video quality ratings between mobile and tower videos (mean difference, −0.07; P < .37). Similarly, we found no significant difference in the observers' diagnostic accuracy (mean difference, 1.54%; P < .686). Conclusion: With adequate power, our study was unable to demonstrate a difference between mobile adapter videos and tower videos. Our findings suggest that mobile adapter videos may reasonably be used in lieu of tower videos in clinical practice.