Table 3.

Evidence of efficacy of single-use flexible bronchoscopes

Setting	Elective surgery	ENT surgery	Sample collection for research
Comparison	Ambu®aScope™2 vs Karl Storz fibrescope	Ambu®aScope vs conventional videoscope	Ambu®aScope vs conventional scope
Intervention	Orotracheal intubation in anaesthetised patients	Tracheal intubation in awake patients	BAL collection for research purposes in healthy volunteers
Nature of study	60 patients randomised to either group Operators familiar with both devices	Pilot study in 20 anaesthetised patients with normal airways Random assignment to either group of 40 awake patients with predicted difficult airways	SUFB used for RML BAL in 10 volunteers vs BAL with conventional scope in 50 volunteers
Outcome	No difference in GRS between devices	Clinically acceptable—two instances of blurred image after lidocaine injection—new SUFBs deployed	Greater sample volumes in SUFB group No difference in cell yield or viability
Reference	[12]	[13]	[33]

GRS Global Rating Scale (a validated score for benchmarking operators who perform clinical bronchoscopy), BAL bronchoalveolar lavage, RML right middle lobe