Jeon Yeob Jang1, Jun-Oh Park1, Junsun Ryu2, Han-Sin Jeong1. 1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 2. Center for Thyroid Cancer, National Cancer Center, Ilsan, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Advancements in medical endoscopy and techniques of rigid bronchoscopy for foreign body removal have enabled higher diagnostic accuracy, reduced morbidity and precise manipulation. However, in pediatric patients, endoscope-combined forceps may be too big to fit into the small sized airway. Here we present our method of endoscope assisted rigid bronchoscopy in pediatric patients and compare the clinical benefits with conventional naked-eye rigid bronchoscopy. METHODS: We used a 2.7 mm, 0° straight endoscope and small caliber grasping forceps with 3.0 to 4.5 mm sized rigid bronchoscopy for very young (<3 years of age) patients of foreign body aspiration. As an assistant held the rigid bronchoscope in situ, the operator could manipulate the endoscope and forceps bimanually. With endoscopic guidance, the foreign body retrieval was performed carefully. The clinical advantages were compared between our endoscope-assisted method (n=29) and the conventional bronchoscopy method (n=33) in terms of operation time and recovery (hospital stay). RESULTS: Bimanual endoscope-assisted rigid bronchoscopy method was technically feasible and safe. The operation time was less, compared to the conventional technique and the patients recovered more quickly. In all cases, our method completely removed the foreign body without need of a second bronchoscopy procedure. CONCLUSION: Bimanual endoscope-assisted retrieval of airway foreign body in very young age pediatric patients was superior to the conventional naked-eye method concerning accurate manipulation and safety.
OBJECTIVES: Advancements in medical endoscopy and techniques of rigid bronchoscopy for foreign body removal have enabled higher diagnostic accuracy, reduced morbidity and precise manipulation. However, in pediatric patients, endoscope-combined forceps may be too big to fit into the small sized airway. Here we present our method of endoscope assisted rigid bronchoscopy in pediatric patients and compare the clinical benefits with conventional naked-eye rigid bronchoscopy. METHODS: We used a 2.7 mm, 0° straight endoscope and small caliber grasping forceps with 3.0 to 4.5 mm sized rigid bronchoscopy for very young (<3 years of age) patients of foreign body aspiration. As an assistant held the rigid bronchoscope in situ, the operator could manipulate the endoscope and forceps bimanually. With endoscopic guidance, the foreign body retrieval was performed carefully. The clinical advantages were compared between our endoscope-assisted method (n=29) and the conventional bronchoscopy method (n=33) in terms of operation time and recovery (hospital stay). RESULTS: Bimanual endoscope-assisted rigid bronchoscopy method was technically feasible and safe. The operation time was less, compared to the conventional technique and the patients recovered more quickly. In all cases, our method completely removed the foreign body without need of a second bronchoscopy procedure. CONCLUSION: Bimanual endoscope-assisted retrieval of airway foreign body in very young age pediatric patients was superior to the conventional naked-eye method concerning accurate manipulation and safety.