Current practices and variations in pediatric flexible bronchoscopy: First national survey of pediatric pulmonologists in Türkiye
Résumé fourni par la source
Pediatric flexible bronchoscopy (FB) approaches vary greatly despite several guidelines. Survey studies provide comprehensive data regarding best practices, challenges, and areas of consensus. We aimed to evaluate current practices and variations of FB among pediatric pulmonologists in Türkiye. A link to the survey was sent via email to the clinical directors of pediatric pulmonology at nineteen FB centers. The survey consisted of 80 questions in the following eight domains: demographics, patient preparation, bronchoscopy procedure, sedation/anesthesia, discharge, bronchoscope cleaning, complications, and comments. 100% percent of answers were obtained from 19 centers, representing 92 pediatric pulmonologists. The median number of FB performed was 210 (30-500) per center per year. The main indications were atelectasis and immune deficiency. Advanced bronchoscopic interventions such as endobronchial biopsies (31.6%) were less common. Of 16 centers using general anesthesia, 47.4% combined with local anesthesia. 11 centers used capnography to monitor patients during the procedure. Routine cytology and cultures for tuberculosis were performed in 10 and 13 centers, respectively. This survey study serves as a foundational step towards the development of national guidelines to improve consistency of practice and optimize patient outcomes. Figure Main indications for FB erj;66/suppl_69/PA3108/F1 F1 F1
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Current practices and variations in pediatric flexible bronchoscopy: First national survey of pediatric pulmonologists in Türkiye
- Date Crossref
- 27/09/2025
- Éditeur
- European Respiratory Society
- Type
- proceedings-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.