Background: The essential factor for diagnosis and treatment of diseases in head and neck endoscopy is the visibility of the image. An anti-fogging agent can reduce this problem by minimizing surface tension to prevent the condensation of water in the form of small droplets on a surface. There is no report on the use of hibiscrub® or baby shampoo to reduce fogging in the literature. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy between commercial anti-fogging agent, hibiscrub® and baby shampoo to reduce fogging for the use in head and neck endoscopy.
Methods: The study was conducted at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University in August 2010. Commercial anti-fogging agent, baby shampoo and hibiscrub® were applied on rigid endoscope lens before putting them into a mist generator. The images were taken at baseline, 15 seconds, 30 seconds and 1 minute. The images’ identifiers were removed before they were sent to two evaluators. A visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to rate the image quality from 0 to 10.
Results: The difference in mean VAS score between anti-fogging agent, baby shampoo and hibiscrub® versus no agent were 5.46, 4.45 and 2.1 respectively. The commercial anti-fogging agent and baby shampoo had most protective benefit and performed significantly better than no agent (P < 0.05).
Conclusions: Baby shampoo is an effective agent to prevent fogging during head and neck endoscopy and compares favourably with commercial anti-fogging agent.
PDF (505.31 KB PDF FORMAT)
RIS citation (ENDNOTE, REFERENCE MANAGER, PROCITE, REFWORKS)
BibTex citation (BIBDESK, LATEX)
I would like to express my gratitude to all the staff of LA's journals. I published twice and I will certainly continue with LA's journals in the future. Thank you for providing a sustainable publishing environment for us.
All authors are surveyed after their articles are published. Authors are asked to rate their experience in a variety of areas, and their responses help us to monitor our performance. Presented here are their responses in some key areas. No 'poor' or 'very poor' responses were received; these are represented in the 'other' category.See Our Results
Copyright © 2013 Libertas Academica Ltd (except open access articles and accompanying metadata and supplementary files.)