Cargando…

Single-use flexible bronchoscopes vs traditional reusable flexible bronchoscopes: a prospective controlled study

BACKGROUND: Single-use flexible bronchoscopes(SFB) eliminate the risk of bronchoscopy-related infection compared with traditional reusable flexible bronchoscopes(RFB). At present, there is no comparative study between SFB and RFB in the aspects of biopsy and interventional therapy. This study aims t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: He, Shuzhen, Xie, Lihua, Liu, Jianming, Zou, Lijun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10252171/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37296389
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12890-023-02478-5
_version_ 1785056106255482880
author He, Shuzhen
Xie, Lihua
Liu, Jianming
Zou, Lijun
author_facet He, Shuzhen
Xie, Lihua
Liu, Jianming
Zou, Lijun
author_sort He, Shuzhen
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Single-use flexible bronchoscopes(SFB) eliminate the risk of bronchoscopy-related infection compared with traditional reusable flexible bronchoscopes(RFB). At present, there is no comparative study between SFB and RFB in the aspects of biopsy and interventional therapy. This study aims to explore whether SFB can perform complex bronchoscopic procedures such as transbronchial biopsies just like RFB. METHODS: We conducted a prospective controlled study. A total of 45 patients who required bronchoscopic biopsy in our hospital from June 2022 to December 2022 were enrolled. The patients were divided into the SFB group and the RFB group, and routine bronchoscopy, bronchoalveolar lavage, and biopsy were performed respectively. Data on the time of routine bronchoscopy, the recovery rate of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid(BALF), biopsy time, and bleeding volume were collected. Then we used the two-sample t-test and the χ(2) test to assess the performance differences between SFB and RFB. We also designed a questionnaire to compare the performance between SFB and RFB by different bronchoscope operators. RESULTS: The routine examination time of SFB and RFB was 3.40 ± 0.50 min and 3.55 ± 0.42 min, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.308). The recovery rate of BALF was (46.56 ± 8.22) % in the SFB group and (47.00 ± 8.07) in the RFB group, without a significant difference between the two groups(P = 0.863). The biopsy time was similar(4.67 ± 0.51 min VS 4.57 ± 0.45 min) in both groups, with no significant difference(P = 0.512). The positive biopsy rate was 100% in both groups, with no significant difference. Overall, the bronchoscope operators were generally satisfied with SFB. CONCLUSION: SFBs are non-inferior to RFBs in routine bronchoscopy, bronchoalveolar lavage, and biopsy. It is suggested that SFBs have a wider clinical application.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10252171
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102521712023-06-11 Single-use flexible bronchoscopes vs traditional reusable flexible bronchoscopes: a prospective controlled study He, Shuzhen Xie, Lihua Liu, Jianming Zou, Lijun BMC Pulm Med Research BACKGROUND: Single-use flexible bronchoscopes(SFB) eliminate the risk of bronchoscopy-related infection compared with traditional reusable flexible bronchoscopes(RFB). At present, there is no comparative study between SFB and RFB in the aspects of biopsy and interventional therapy. This study aims to explore whether SFB can perform complex bronchoscopic procedures such as transbronchial biopsies just like RFB. METHODS: We conducted a prospective controlled study. A total of 45 patients who required bronchoscopic biopsy in our hospital from June 2022 to December 2022 were enrolled. The patients were divided into the SFB group and the RFB group, and routine bronchoscopy, bronchoalveolar lavage, and biopsy were performed respectively. Data on the time of routine bronchoscopy, the recovery rate of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid(BALF), biopsy time, and bleeding volume were collected. Then we used the two-sample t-test and the χ(2) test to assess the performance differences between SFB and RFB. We also designed a questionnaire to compare the performance between SFB and RFB by different bronchoscope operators. RESULTS: The routine examination time of SFB and RFB was 3.40 ± 0.50 min and 3.55 ± 0.42 min, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.308). The recovery rate of BALF was (46.56 ± 8.22) % in the SFB group and (47.00 ± 8.07) in the RFB group, without a significant difference between the two groups(P = 0.863). The biopsy time was similar(4.67 ± 0.51 min VS 4.57 ± 0.45 min) in both groups, with no significant difference(P = 0.512). The positive biopsy rate was 100% in both groups, with no significant difference. Overall, the bronchoscope operators were generally satisfied with SFB. CONCLUSION: SFBs are non-inferior to RFBs in routine bronchoscopy, bronchoalveolar lavage, and biopsy. It is suggested that SFBs have a wider clinical application. BioMed Central 2023-06-09 /pmc/articles/PMC10252171/ /pubmed/37296389 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12890-023-02478-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
He, Shuzhen
Xie, Lihua
Liu, Jianming
Zou, Lijun
Single-use flexible bronchoscopes vs traditional reusable flexible bronchoscopes: a prospective controlled study
title Single-use flexible bronchoscopes vs traditional reusable flexible bronchoscopes: a prospective controlled study
title_full Single-use flexible bronchoscopes vs traditional reusable flexible bronchoscopes: a prospective controlled study
title_fullStr Single-use flexible bronchoscopes vs traditional reusable flexible bronchoscopes: a prospective controlled study
title_full_unstemmed Single-use flexible bronchoscopes vs traditional reusable flexible bronchoscopes: a prospective controlled study
title_short Single-use flexible bronchoscopes vs traditional reusable flexible bronchoscopes: a prospective controlled study
title_sort single-use flexible bronchoscopes vs traditional reusable flexible bronchoscopes: a prospective controlled study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10252171/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37296389
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12890-023-02478-5
work_keys_str_mv AT heshuzhen singleuseflexiblebronchoscopesvstraditionalreusableflexiblebronchoscopesaprospectivecontrolledstudy
AT xielihua singleuseflexiblebronchoscopesvstraditionalreusableflexiblebronchoscopesaprospectivecontrolledstudy
AT liujianming singleuseflexiblebronchoscopesvstraditionalreusableflexiblebronchoscopesaprospectivecontrolledstudy
AT zoulijun singleuseflexiblebronchoscopesvstraditionalreusableflexiblebronchoscopesaprospectivecontrolledstudy