Contraindications, Risks, Complications in Interventional Pneumology

Facciolongo, Nicola

doi:10.4081/monaldi.2011.242

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 45 publications

(35 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Inclusion criteria: ① age range 18–75 years; ② patients underwent bronchoscopy in our hospital, and all signed an informed consent form; ③ lung CT showed block shadow, pulmonary atelectasis, obstructive pneumonia, and suspected lung cancer. Exclusion criteria were those with contraindications for bronchoscopy [ 16 , 17 ]. The Ethics Committee of the Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University approved this study (approval number: R22029).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Xie

Liu

et al. 2023

BMC Pulm Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 χ2 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.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Xie

Liu

et al. 2023

BMC Pulm Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Inclusion criteria: age range 18-75 years; patients underwent bronchoscopy in our hospital, and all signed an informed consent form; lung CT showed block shadow, pulmonary atelectasis, obstructive pneumonia, and suspected lung cancer. exclusion criteria were those with contraindications for bronchoscopy [10,11]. The Ethics Committee of the Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University approved this study (approval number: R22029).…”

Section: Subjects and Study Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Xie

Liu

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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. 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±0.51min 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.

show abstract

Contraindications, Risks, Complications in Interventional Pneumology

Abstract: -

Cited by 2 publications

References 45 publications

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

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About