ReviewAnaesthesia2025
Single-use vs. reusable flexible bronchoscopes for airway management and in critical care: a narrative review.
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.
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.
- Basic Bronchoscopy Competence Achieved During a One-Day Workshop for a Multidisciplinary Critical Care Team:Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2026Article
- Cost analysis of single-use versus reusable bronchoscopes in German intensive care units.GMS hygiene and infection control · 2026Article
- Human Factors in Airway Management: Designing Systems for Safer, Team-Based Care.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Challenges, opportunities, and future perspectives of portable field endoscopy.Military Medical Research · 2025Article
- Single-use flexible bronchoscopy with the Boston ScientificJournal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Study on pathogen monitoring and critical patient treatment strategies for acute community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Differences in organizational impact, performance and quality related to the use of single- and/or reusable bronchoscopes in anesthesiology and resuscitation.Global & regional health technology assessmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.