Performance of disposable endoscopic forceps according to the manufacturing techniques
Background/Aims Recently, to lower the production costs and risk of infection, new disposable biopsy forceps made using simple manufacturing techniques have been introduced. However, the effects of the manufacturing techniques are unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate which types of biopsy...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
The Korean Association of Internal Medicine
2019-05-01
|
| Series: | The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.kjim.org/upload/pdf/kjim-2017-191.pdf |
| Summary: | Background/Aims Recently, to lower the production costs and risk of infection, new disposable biopsy forceps made using simple manufacturing techniques have been introduced. However, the effects of the manufacturing techniques are unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate which types of biopsy forceps could obtain good-quality specimens according to the manufacturing techniques. Methods By using an in vitro nitrile glove popping model, we compared the popping ability among eight different disposable biopsy forceps (one pair of biopsy forceps with cups made by a cutting method [cutting forceps], four pairs of biopsy forceps with cups made by a pressing method [pressing forceps], and three pairs of biopsy forceps with cups made using a injection molding method [molding forceps]). Using an in vivo swine model, we compared the penetration depth and quality of specimen among the biopsy forceps. Results In the in vitro model, the molding forceps provided a significantly higher popping rate than the other forceps (cutting forceps, 25.0%; pressing forceps, 17.5%; and molding forceps, 41.7%; p = 0.006). In the in vivo model, the cutting and pressing forceps did not provide larger specimens, deeper biopsy specimen, and higher specimen adequacy than those obtained using the molding forceps (p = 0.2631, p = 0.5875, and p = 0.2147, respectively). However, the molding forceps showed significantly more common crush artifact than the others (cutting forceps, 0%; pressing forceps, 5.0%; and molding forceps, 43.3%; p = 0.0007). Conclusions The molding forceps provided lower performance than the cutting and pressing forceps in terms of crush artifact. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1226-3303 2005-6648 |