Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39344667›Full record

ReviewAnaesthesia2025

Single-use vs. reusable flexible bronchoscopes for airway management and in critical care: a narrative review.

Sean Boyd, Ciara J Murphy, Lindi Snyman

Abstract readReviewComparative Study
In one paragraph

Review in Anaesthesia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sean BoydDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Tallaght University Hospital, Tallaght, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-2198-6732
Ciara J MurphyDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Tallaght University Hospital, Tallaght, Dublin, Ireland.
Lindi SnymanDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Tallaght University Hospital, Tallaght, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFlexible bronchoscopes have become essential in the operating theatre environment and in critical care. This narrative review compared single-use and reusable flexible bronchoscopes with a focus on safety, efficacy, cost-effectiveness and environmental impact.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase and PubMed databases for studies related to flexible bronchoscopes for airway management or use in critical care. Human or animal studies of any design assessing single-use and reusable flexible bronchoscopes were included and qualitatively synthesised. We also searched manufacturer websites for relevant data.

resultsWe included 52 studies and data from six manufacturer websites. There was mixed evidence for safety, and data on usability also showed significant heterogeneity, with different parameters, manufacturers and models examined. Neither single-use nor reusable flexible bronchoscopes appeared convincingly superior to the other for safety or usability. Cost analyses showed that the rate of use of flexible bronchoscopes per year, along with several other factors, affects cost-effectiveness for each institution, though the risk of cross-contamination is an advantage of single-use devices. However, sufficient evidence on the rate of bronchoscopy-induced infection in the operating theatre and critical care environment is lacking. Due to the risk of cross-contamination, single-use flexible bronchoscopes must be sterilised or incinerated after use, and completely recyclable single-use models are not currently available.

conclusionsFurther research is required on safety, usability and life cycle assessment in the operating theatre and critical care environment, as well as on the rate of bronchoscopy-induced infection. Future comparative studies, including new manufacturers and designs, may lend further insights.

Indexed as

Airway ManagementBronchoscopesCritical CareDisposable EquipmentAnimalsBronchoscopyCost-Benefit AnalysisEquipment DesignEquipment ReuseHumansbronchoscopycost‐effectivenessenvironmentalfibreoptic intubationtracheal intubation

Identifiers

PMID39344667
PMCPMC11726266

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.