Ultrathin bronchoscopy versus conventional bronchoscopy in the diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jiaping Liu, Ze Yang, Heng Zou, Lei Li, Longzhao Li, Hongwu Wang
{"title":"Ultrathin bronchoscopy versus conventional bronchoscopy in the diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Jiaping Liu, Ze Yang, Heng Zou, Lei Li, Longzhao Li, Hongwu Wang","doi":"10.1080/17476348.2025.2481959","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ultrathin bronchoscopy (UTB) is commonly used to diagnose peripheral pulmonary lesions due to its small diameter. However, there is no consensus on its comparison with conventional bronchoscopy (CB) combined with various guiding modalities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify studies comparing UTB and CB, extracting data on diagnostic yield, operating time, complications, pathological diagnoses, and lesion size. Protocol registration: identifier CRD42024554649. PRISMA guidelines were followed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This meta-analysis included 11 studies with 2,640 patients. UTB demonstrated a significantly higher diagnostic yield (70.5% vs. 57.6%, <i>p</i> = 0.005), particularly with rEBUS and fluoroscopy (<i>p</i> = 0.02). UTB had a higher complication rate, but the difference was not significant (<i>p</i> = 0.37). It also had a shorter operative time than CB-GS (<i>p</i> = 0.007). UTB showed a significant advantage in diagnosing malignant tumors, especially adenocarcinoma and metastatic cancer (<i>p</i> = 0.02, <i>p</i> = 0.03). Both techniques were comparable in diagnosing benign conditions, but UTB outperformed CB in all lesion size categories (<i>p</i> < 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>UTB's smaller diameter likely provides a diagnostic advantage over CB and CB-GS by enabling deeper and more accurate access to peripheral lung regions.</p>","PeriodicalId":94007,"journal":{"name":"Expert review of respiratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert review of respiratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17476348.2025.2481959","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Ultrathin bronchoscopy (UTB) is commonly used to diagnose peripheral pulmonary lesions due to its small diameter. However, there is no consensus on its comparison with conventional bronchoscopy (CB) combined with various guiding modalities.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify studies comparing UTB and CB, extracting data on diagnostic yield, operating time, complications, pathological diagnoses, and lesion size. Protocol registration: identifier CRD42024554649. PRISMA guidelines were followed.

Results: This meta-analysis included 11 studies with 2,640 patients. UTB demonstrated a significantly higher diagnostic yield (70.5% vs. 57.6%, p = 0.005), particularly with rEBUS and fluoroscopy (p = 0.02). UTB had a higher complication rate, but the difference was not significant (p = 0.37). It also had a shorter operative time than CB-GS (p = 0.007). UTB showed a significant advantage in diagnosing malignant tumors, especially adenocarcinoma and metastatic cancer (p = 0.02, p = 0.03). Both techniques were comparable in diagnosing benign conditions, but UTB outperformed CB in all lesion size categories (p < 0.01).

Conclusions: UTB's smaller diameter likely provides a diagnostic advantage over CB and CB-GS by enabling deeper and more accurate access to peripheral lung regions.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信