Sinus Problem Clinical Trial
Official title:
Safety and Effectiveness Evaluation of the Peregrine Drivable ENT Scope for Office Endoscopy of the Paranasal Sinuses in Patients Who Underwent ESS
| Verified date | September 2021 |
| Source | Emory University |
| Contact | n/a |
| Is FDA regulated | No |
| Health authority | |
| Study type | Interventional |
The purpose of this study is to assess the safety and effectiveness of the Peregrine endoscope in patients in the office setting in terms of access into and visualization of the paranasal sinus anatomy, image quality, patient tolerability and clinical utility. Up to 30 participants who have had prior endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) and are scheduled for nasal endoscopy in the office as part of a routine post-operative office visit or due to recurrence of symptoms, will be evaluated with the Peregrine Endoscope as well as a standard endoscope. This study aims to: - compare visualization success rates of the paranasal sinus anatomy by Peregrine and by a standard endoscope used in the office setting. - examine device related adverse events. - assess the adequacy of the image quality of Peregrine for endoscopy procedures in the office. - evaluate patient tolerability and pain
| Status | Terminated |
| Enrollment | 6 |
| Est. completion date | September 1, 2020 |
| Est. primary completion date | September 1, 2020 |
| Accepts healthy volunteers | No |
| Gender | All |
| Age group | 18 Years and older |
| Eligibility | Inclusion Criteria: - A male or female patient who has had prior ESS and who is indicated for office endoscopy by the ENT specialist - A patient who is able to understand the requirements of the study, is willing to comply with its instructions and schedules, and agrees to sign the informed consent form Exclusion Criteria: - Any medical disorder which in the investigator's judgment contraindicates the patient's participation - Pregnancy |
| Country | Name | City | State |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States | Emory Hospital Midtown | Atlanta | Georgia |
| Lead Sponsor | Collaborator |
|---|---|
| Emory University | 3NT Medical Ltd. |
United States,
| Type | Measure | Description | Time frame | Safety issue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Number of Participants With Visualization Success of Maxillary Sinus Anatomy | The ability of each endoscope type to visualize the maxillary sinus anatomy (ostium, floor, lateral recess, anterior wall) was assessed as being a success or failure. | Day 1 (after each endoscopy) | |
| Primary | Number of Participants With Visualization Success of Frontal Sinus Anatomy | The ability of each endoscope type to visualize the frontal sinus anatomy (ostium, posterior table, anterior table, lateral recess) was assessed as being a success or failure. | Day 1 (after each endoscopy) | |
| Primary | Number of Participants With Visualization Success of Sphenoid Sinus Anatomy | The ability of each endoscope type to visualize the sphenoid sinus anatomy (ostium, sella, floor, lateral aspect) was assessed as being a success or failure. | Day 1 (after each endoscopy) | |
| Secondary | Number of Participants With Adequate or Inadequate Image Quality From Peregrine Endoscopy | Image quality will be assessed through a yes/no statement, reported by physicians, regarding the adequacy of the Peregrine image quality for making clinical decisions in the office setting. | Day 1 (after each endoscopy) | |
| Secondary | Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Tolerability Score | Participant tolerability was evaluated through validated VAS for both endoscopies. Scores range from 1 to 10, where 1 = highly tolerable and 10 = not tolerable. | Day 1 (after each endoscopy) | |
| Secondary | VAS Pain Score | Participant pain was evaluated through validated VAS for both endoscopies. Scores range from 1 to 10, where 1 = no pain and 10 = pain as bad as it could be. | Day 1 (after each endoscopy) | |
| Secondary | Impact on Clinical Workflow | The impact on clinical workflow of visual information obtained by each endoscope procedures was rated by physicians on a 5-point scale where 1 = worst and 5 = best. | Day 1 (after each endoscopy) | |
| Secondary | Ease of Use | The ease of use of each endoscope procedure was rated by physicians on a 5-point scale where 1 = worst and 5 = best. | Day 1 (after each endoscopy) |