ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2026
Comparison of nasal and oral linear endobronchial ultrasound: a retrospective single-center study.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a safe and effective technique for lung cancer staging and evaluation of mediastinal and hilar lesions. Although oral insertion is widely used, the nasal route may improve scope stability and patient tolerance, but comparative data remain limited.
methodsThis retrospective single-center study included adults who underwent linear EBUS-TBNA for mediastinal or hilar lymphadenopathy between January 2019 and December 2023. Patients were grouped according to insertion route. Standardized topical anesthesia, conscious sedation, procedural monitoring, and post-procedural recovery criteria were used. Hemodynamic parameters, oxygen saturation, sedative and analgesic requirements, lymph node sampling, diagnostic results, complications, and post-procedural complaints were compared between the nasal and oral groups.
resultsNasal EBUS was performed in 158 patients (39.1%) and oral EBUS in 246 patients (60.9%). Baseline and intraprocedural oxygen saturation were similar between groups, whereas post-procedure oxygen saturation was higher in the nasal group. Oral EBUS was associated with a greater intraprocedural heart-rate increase, higher midazolam and propofol requirements, more frequent hypoxemia-related procedure interruption, and a higher re-EBUS rate. The nasal route was associated with modestly shorter procedures and slightly higher numbers of sampled lymph node stations and punctures per examination. Diagnostic categories and overall complication rates were comparable between groups.
conclusionIn this large single-center retrospective cohort, nasal linear EBUS-TBNA was a feasible and safe alternative to oral EBUS-TBNA. The nasal route provided comparable diagnostic performance and complication rates while reducing sedative requirements, hypoxemia-related interruptions, and procedure time. These findings support the nasal route as a practical option for interventional pulmonology units experienced with linear EBUS.
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.