ArticleRespirology case reports2021
Precautionary strategy for high-risk airway bleeding cases during robotic-assisted bronchoscopy.
Article in Respirology case reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- AIM (Anticipate/Adjust, Image, Manage) to Prevent Bleeding During Robotically-Assisted Bronchoscopic Ablation.Respirology case reports · 2025Article
- Anesthesia for Bronchoscopy-An Update.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Robotic Bronchoscopy for the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Lesions.Thoracic surgery clinics · 2023Review
- Endoscopic Technologies for Peripheral Pulmonary Lesions: From Diagnosis to Therapy.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Real-World Impact of Robotic-Assisted Bronchoscopy on the Staging and Diagnosis of Lung Cancer: The Shape of Current and Potential Opportunities.Pragmatic and observational research · 2023Review
- Precautionary strategy for high-risk airway bleeding cases during robotic-assisted bronchoscopy.Respirology case reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bronchoscopy in thrombocytopenic patients remains a controversial topic as traditionally varying platelet thresholds have been stablished as "safe," ranging from 20,000 to 50,000. A lower threshold may be safe for a routine airway inspection with bronchoalveolar lavage but will be far from safe for more invasive interventions such as needle biopsy, transbronchial biopsy, or cryo-biopsy. Currently, a minimal platelet threshold during robotic-assisted bronchoscopy (RAB) has not been established. In addition, the absolute platelet number does not guarantee appropriate platelet function. The literature regarding the safety of bronchoscopy and its bleeding risk, considering broader and more functional tests such as thromboelastography (TEG), is also lacking. We present our RAB approach to safely sample lung nodules in a patient with thrombocytopenia. Our precautionary strategy for high-risk bleeding cases during RAB utilizing TEG and parallel flexible bronchoscopy with segmental balloon occlusion may be an appropriate technique to minimize bleeding risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.