Evaluation of a new developed disposable and portable bronchoscopy system

Liang, Zhixin; Zhou, Guanzhou; Li, Yang; Pan, Fei; Zeng, Jiaqi; Luan, Zhe; Zhu, Qiang; Xu, Yi; Zhang, Nana; Xiang, Lei; Jia, Yongyi; Sun, Gang; Yang, Yunsheng

doi:10.1186/s12890-022-01933-z

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 27 An animal study using a new system not commercially available reported advantages over a similar reusable Ambu ® aScope3™ scope. 28 All companies have a slim scope option with other some differences in other size available. We elected the larger 2.8 mm channel scope (3 mm Pentax SUFB) as this is more optimal for suction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single Use or Disposable Flexible Bronchoscopes: Bench Top and Preclinical Comparison of Currently Available Devices

Deasy

Sweeney

Danish

et al. 2023

J Intensive Care Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Data regarding the risk of infection related to reusable bronchoscopes, the global drive toward disposable technology and the COVID-19 pandemic have led to an increase in the use and production of single use or disposable bronchoscopes. An in-depth comparison of all available devices has not been published. Methods A benchtop comparison of the Ambu®aScopeTM, Boston Scientific® EXALTTM Model B, the Surgical Company Broncoflex© Vortex, Pentax® Medical ONE Pulmo™, and Vathin® H-SteriscopeTM (all 2.8 mm inner dimension other than the Pentax single-use flexible bronchoscope (3 mm)) was undertaken including measurement of maximal flexion and extension angles, thumb force required and suction with and without biopsy forceps. Thereafter, preclinical assessment was performed with data collected including experience, gender, hand size, and scope preference. Results The Vathin single-use flexible bronchoscope had the biggest range of tip movement from flexion to extension with and without forceps. The Boston single-use flexible bronchoscope required the maximal thumb force but had the least reduction of tip movement with forceps. The Boston single-use flexible bronchoscope significantly outperformed all other scopes including the standard Pentax scope and was the only scope capable of suctioning pseudo-mucus around the forceps. Although there was no significant difference in preference in the overall group, females and those with smaller hand size preferred the Pentax and males the Broncoflex single-use flexible bronchoscope. Conclusions Currently available single-use flexible bronchoscopes differ in several factors other than scope sizes and monitor including suction, turning envelope, and handle size. Performance in the clinical setting will be key to their success.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single Use or Disposable Flexible Bronchoscopes: Bench Top and Preclinical Comparison of Currently Available Devices

Deasy

Sweeney

Danish

et al. 2023

J Intensive Care Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In terms of performance comparison, Liang et al found that the YunSendo-R(SFBs) is superior to the Ambu aScope3 (SFBs) in terms of image clarity, color contrast, and illumination [ 27 ]. And it had similar vision and operability to the Olympus bronchoscope (RFBs).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

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

Evaluation of a new developed disposable and portable bronchoscopy system

Cited by 3 publications

References 10 publications

Single Use or Disposable Flexible Bronchoscopes: Bench Top and Preclinical Comparison of Currently Available Devices

Single Use or Disposable Flexible Bronchoscopes: Bench Top and Preclinical Comparison of Currently Available Devices

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