New Ureteral Access Sheaths: A Double Standard - 28/03/15
Abstract |
Objective |
To investigate the functional characteristics of the traditional and new single-wire ureteral access sheath (UAS) configurations relating to insertion, positioning, tissue injury, and durability.
Materials and Methods |
Four UAS were tested: Navigator HD (11/13F, Boston Scientific), Re-Trace (10/12F, Coloplast), Flexor-Parallel (P), and Flexor-Regular (R; 9.5/11.5F, Cook Medical). UASs were evaluated for sharpness—(1) foil perforation, (2) tissue skiving (advancing sheath/dilator against fixed foil or bologna models); rigidity—(3) tip bending, (4) sheath buckling; (5) lubricity (dynamic friction through bologna), (6) dilator removal force, (7) kinking forces (side wall compressive forces), and (8) radiopacity. New UASs were used for each trial. A motorized sliding stage was used, and continuous force measurements were recorded with a Mark-10 digital force gauge.
Results |
The Navigator HD had the largest external diameter (13.02F). Re-Trace had the longest (51 mm) and most flexible tip (0.942 lb, P <.001). Flexor-R had the shortest (23.2 mm) and stiffest tip (7.48 lb). The Cook tip perforation forces were highest (0.807 lb), whereas the sheath required the most force (0.25 lb, P <.001) and caused the least damage (4.95 mm) when advanced against tissue. Navigator HD had the least frictional resistance (0.14 lb, P <.001). The single-wire systems had the lowest buckling forces (Navigator HD, 0.41 lb; Flexor-R, 0.827 lb; Flexor-P, 0.445 lb; Re-Trace, 1.014 lb; P <.001) and the highest dilator removal forces compared with classic systems (Flexor-P, 1.39 lb; Re-Trace, 1.9 lb; Navigator HD, 0.190 lb; Flexor-R, 0.194 lb; P <.001). The differences in kinking forces and radiopacity were not significant.
Conclusion |
The Navigator HD was the most slippery and rigid sheath, whereas the single-wire systems had lower buckling forces and required more force to remove their dilators. Cook sheaths appeared the least traumatic.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
Financial Disclosure: The authors declare that they have no relevant financial interests. |
Vol 85 - N° 4
P. 757-763 - avril 2015 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?