[A comparative cost analysis of single-use versus reusable fiberoptic bronchoscopes: Is single-use fiberscope worth it?]

Expert opinion on the use of fiberoptic bronchospe to check the insertion depth of the left-sided double-lumen tube

Left-sided double-lumen tube (LDLT) is commonly used to achieve one lung isolation in most thoracic surgical procedures. Traditionally, the LDLT is blindly placed using direct or video laryngoscopy. In this brief report, we highlight the importance of using our novel insertion depth formula to predict the appropriate LDLT insertion depth and demonstrate the current evidence supporting the efficacy of the formula. Also, we will discuss two relatively new devices of LDLTs: one with an embedded camera at the distal end of the tracheal lumen and the other with a carinal cuff between the bronchial cuff and the tracheal lumen in reducing the incidence of too deep inserted LDLT. We advocate that using our novel formula and these two new devices may reduce but not eliminate the need for FOB to check the insertion depth of LDLT.

The Cost of Flexible Bronchoscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Until 2009, only reusable bronchoscopes were marketed, but the introduction and widespread adoption of single-use flexible bronchoscopes (SFBs) as an emerging technology has since accelerated. Several studies have described the costs of reusable flexible bronchoscopes (RFBs) and SFBs. This meta-analysis aimed to compile the current published evidence to analyse the cost of different scenarios using RFBs and SFBs.

METHODS

All published literature describing the cost of RFBs or SFBs was identified by searching PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar, limited to those between 1 January, 2009 and 6 November, 2020. Included studies should report the total cost of RFBs. Continuous data were extracted for relevant outcomes and analysed using RStudio^® 4.0.3 as the standardised mean difference and standard error of the mean in a mixed-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed based on the reporting quality.

RESULTS

In the systematic literature review, 342 studies were initially identified, and 11 were included in the final analysis. The mean RFB procedure cost was $266 (standard error of the mean: 34), including capital investments, repairs and reprocessing costs of $91, $92 and $83, respectively. The mean SFB procedure cost was $289 (standard error of the mean: 10). The incremental cost was $23 (standard error of the mean: 33) and was not significant (p = 0.46). Because of the economy of scale, RFB is more likely to be cost minimising compared with SFB when performing 306 or 39 procedures per site or RFB, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we found no significant difference in the cost of use between RFBs and SFBs and a high risk of bias.