Ajay Wagh, David Hoffman, Christina Cool, Audra Schwalk
{"title":"一次性柔性支气管镜对支气管肺泡灌洗的评价。","authors":"Ajay Wagh, David Hoffman, Christina Cool, Audra Schwalk","doi":"10.21037/jtd-2024-2118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Since their initial release in 2009, single-use flexible bronchoscopes (SUFBs) have significantly evolved from simple tools largely used for airway inspection with limited functionality to highly advanced instruments with the same capabilities as reusable flexible bronchoscopes (RFBs). Despite this, scrutiny still exists. The purpose of this study was to better understand the performance and preference of six industry leading SUFBs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-one physicians who regularly use bronchoscopes performed two simulated bronchoalveolar lavages (BALs) on low fidelity lung models with six SUFBs: Ambu aScope 4 and 5 (with integrated sampler system), Boston Scientific Exalt Model B, Olympus H-SteriScope, and Verathon B-Flex and B-Flex 2 (all with a Lukens trap). After completing BALs with each scope, physicians answered an 18-question survey with a five-point rating system where 1 indicated unacceptable, 3 indicated satisfactory, and 5 indicated excellent.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Ambu aScope 5 Broncho HD rated highest in each of the 18 evaluated categories with an overall average performance score of 4.47 and sampling score of 4.40. A two-sample <i>t</i>-test found that the average score of the Ambu aScope 5 HD was significantly higher than the other SUFBs for both performance and sampling.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>All six SUFBs included in the study scored above \"satisfactory\" in both the performance and sampling metrics measured. Of the six, the aScope 5 Broncho HD with an integrated sampling system had the highest average rating for both performance and sampling metrics, followed by the Exalt Model B for performance and the aScope 4 Broncho for sampling. As the annual volume of procedures continues to increase, SUFBs that combine safety, superb performance, and convenience will help further evolve bronchoscopy.</p>","PeriodicalId":17542,"journal":{"name":"Journal of thoracic disease","volume":"17 4","pages":"2186-2193"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12090149/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Single-use flexible bronchoscope evaluation for bronchoalveolar lavage.\",\"authors\":\"Ajay Wagh, David Hoffman, Christina Cool, Audra Schwalk\",\"doi\":\"10.21037/jtd-2024-2118\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Since their initial release in 2009, single-use flexible bronchoscopes (SUFBs) have significantly evolved from simple tools largely used for airway inspection with limited functionality to highly advanced instruments with the same capabilities as reusable flexible bronchoscopes (RFBs). Despite this, scrutiny still exists. The purpose of this study was to better understand the performance and preference of six industry leading SUFBs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-one physicians who regularly use bronchoscopes performed two simulated bronchoalveolar lavages (BALs) on low fidelity lung models with six SUFBs: Ambu aScope 4 and 5 (with integrated sampler system), Boston Scientific Exalt Model B, Olympus H-SteriScope, and Verathon B-Flex and B-Flex 2 (all with a Lukens trap). After completing BALs with each scope, physicians answered an 18-question survey with a five-point rating system where 1 indicated unacceptable, 3 indicated satisfactory, and 5 indicated excellent.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Ambu aScope 5 Broncho HD rated highest in each of the 18 evaluated categories with an overall average performance score of 4.47 and sampling score of 4.40. A two-sample <i>t</i>-test found that the average score of the Ambu aScope 5 HD was significantly higher than the other SUFBs for both performance and sampling.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>All six SUFBs included in the study scored above \\\"satisfactory\\\" in both the performance and sampling metrics measured. Of the six, the aScope 5 Broncho HD with an integrated sampling system had the highest average rating for both performance and sampling metrics, followed by the Exalt Model B for performance and the aScope 4 Broncho for sampling. As the annual volume of procedures continues to increase, SUFBs that combine safety, superb performance, and convenience will help further evolve bronchoscopy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17542,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of thoracic disease\",\"volume\":\"17 4\",\"pages\":\"2186-2193\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12090149/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of thoracic disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd-2024-2118\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of thoracic disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd-2024-2118","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
Single-use flexible bronchoscope evaluation for bronchoalveolar lavage.
Background: Since their initial release in 2009, single-use flexible bronchoscopes (SUFBs) have significantly evolved from simple tools largely used for airway inspection with limited functionality to highly advanced instruments with the same capabilities as reusable flexible bronchoscopes (RFBs). Despite this, scrutiny still exists. The purpose of this study was to better understand the performance and preference of six industry leading SUFBs.
Methods: Thirty-one physicians who regularly use bronchoscopes performed two simulated bronchoalveolar lavages (BALs) on low fidelity lung models with six SUFBs: Ambu aScope 4 and 5 (with integrated sampler system), Boston Scientific Exalt Model B, Olympus H-SteriScope, and Verathon B-Flex and B-Flex 2 (all with a Lukens trap). After completing BALs with each scope, physicians answered an 18-question survey with a five-point rating system where 1 indicated unacceptable, 3 indicated satisfactory, and 5 indicated excellent.
Results: The Ambu aScope 5 Broncho HD rated highest in each of the 18 evaluated categories with an overall average performance score of 4.47 and sampling score of 4.40. A two-sample t-test found that the average score of the Ambu aScope 5 HD was significantly higher than the other SUFBs for both performance and sampling.
Conclusions: All six SUFBs included in the study scored above "satisfactory" in both the performance and sampling metrics measured. Of the six, the aScope 5 Broncho HD with an integrated sampling system had the highest average rating for both performance and sampling metrics, followed by the Exalt Model B for performance and the aScope 4 Broncho for sampling. As the annual volume of procedures continues to increase, SUFBs that combine safety, superb performance, and convenience will help further evolve bronchoscopy.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Thoracic Disease (JTD, J Thorac Dis, pISSN: 2072-1439; eISSN: 2077-6624) was founded in Dec 2009, and indexed in PubMed in Dec 2011 and Science Citation Index SCI in Feb 2013. It is published quarterly (Dec 2009- Dec 2011), bimonthly (Jan 2012 - Dec 2013), monthly (Jan. 2014-) and openly distributed worldwide. JTD received its impact factor of 2.365 for the year 2016. JTD publishes manuscripts that describe new findings and provide current, practical information on the diagnosis and treatment of conditions related to thoracic disease. All the submission and reviewing are conducted electronically so that rapid review is assured.