Ergonomics of In‐Office Nasolaryngoscopy: Comparison Between Conventional and Pistol Grip Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In-office nasolaryngoscopy in otolaryngology is a short but frequently performed procedure that can lead to substantial ergonomic risk. This study seeks to compare the ergonomic difference between pistol and conventional grip techniques during in-office nasolaryngoscopy. METHODS: Twelve otolaryngology staff, residents, and speech language pathologists were prospectively enrolled. Each practitioner was observed performing nasolaryngoscopy on 20 to 40 patients using either the conventional or pistol grips. Ergonomic assessments were conducted using the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) Employee Assessment Worksheet. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize practitioner characteristics, raw RULA scores, and RULA risk categories. Linear mixed models with random intercepts were used to compare the raw RULA scores of the two grips. RESULTS: Of the total 403 procedures observed, 211 were performed using the conventional grip and 192 using the pistol grip. According to RULA risk categorization, 77.08% of the pistol grip procedures were classified as low ergonomic risk, compared to 58.29% for the conventional grip. Mean RULA scores were 4.1 ± 1.3 for the pistol grip and 4.7 ± 1.3 for the conventional grip. There was a significant mean difference of 0.65 (95% CI: 0.48, 0.82; p < 0.0001) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Overall, both the pistol grip and conventional grip techniques fell into the same RULA ergonomic risk category. However, the pistol grip had a significantly lower average final RULA score than the conventional grip. Further studies are needed to evaluate the feasibility and broader adoption of the pistol grip across various otolaryngology endoscopic procedures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".