Literature DB >> 15126774

Comparison of guide wires in urology. Which, when and why?

Matthew Clayman1, Carlos A Uribe, Louis Eichel, Zachary Gordon, Elspeth M McDougall, Ralph V Clayman.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We compared and contrasted various guide wires with regard to their physical properties as they apply to their use for the access or coaxial passage of other catheters.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Certain 0.035-inch diameter guide wires were tested with regard to tip bending force, shaft bending force, pull force and tip puncture force, namely the Roadrunner PC and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) wire guide (Cook Urological, Spencer, Indiana), Glidewire, Bentson type 15 cm flexible tip PTFE coated guide wire and Amplatz super stiff Urowire XF (Boston Scientific Microvasive, Miami, Florida), Bentson guide wire and Amplatz guide wire (Applied Medical, Rancho Santa Margarita, California) and the PTFE coated Bard guide wire (Bard Urological Division, Covington, Georgia).
RESULTS: Regarding guide wires used for access, the Boston Scientific PTFE guide wire with a 15 cm flexible tip required the least amount of force to deflect the tip. Of the 3 cm flexible tip guide wires the Applied Bentson guide wire had the most flexible tip and the Bard guide wire had the stiffest flexible tip. The Boston Scientific Glidewire required the least amount of force to pull from a tortuous pathway and this guide wire also required the greatest force (4 times as much force as the other guide wires) to puncture the aluminum foil (p < 0.001), indicating the safety of its tip. Regarding axial rigidity for the coaxial passage of other catheters over a guide wire, the Boston Scientific Amplatz super stiff guide wire was significantly more resistant to bending than all of the other guide wires that we tested (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Brand name guide wires designed for the same purpose appear to differ markedly with regard to flexibility, lubricity and shaft stiffness. In general, floppy tip and nitinol based guide wires appear to be best used for access with an emphasis on tip flexibility and a low friction coating, while the stiffer shaft guide wires are selected for coaxial passage of catheters, stents and sheaths.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15126774     DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000124486.78866.a5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  8 in total

1.  Intravesical knotting of guide wire during insertion of Foley catheter.

Authors:  Arvind Kumar; Bhupendra Pal Singh; Sagorika Paul; Satyanarayan Sankhwar
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2014-01-06

2.  Instrumentation in endourology.

Authors:  Rakesh Khanna; Manoj Monga
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2011-06

3.  [Not Available].

Authors:  Pankaj M Joshi; Subodh R Shivde; Tushar A Dighe
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 1.407

4.  Radiation-free flexible ureteroscopy for kidney stone treatment.

Authors:  Braulio O Manzo; Edgard Lozada; Gildardo Manzo; Héctor M Sánchez; Francisco Gomez; Alejandro Figueroa; Adrian Gonzalez
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2019-04-24

5.  Ureteral Guidewire Looping and Entrapment above an Impacted Ureter Stone.

Authors:  Aikaterini Tsionga; Anastasios Anastasiadis; Wilbert Fana Mutomba; Dimitrios Memmos; Ioannis Vakalopoulos; Georgios Dimitriadis
Journal:  Case Rep Urol       Date:  2019-10-17

6.  Accessory instrumentation in flexible ureteroscopy: Evidence-based recommendation.

Authors:  Timothy Holden; Renato Nardi Pedro; Monoj Monga
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2008-10

Review 7.  Advances in ureteroscopy.

Authors:  David R Wetherell; Damien Ling; Darren Ow; Bhawanie Koonjbeharry; Ania Sliwinski; Mahesha Weerakoon; Nathan Papa; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Damien M Bolton
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2014-09

8.  Perils of guide wire fracture - Unrecognized retained foreign body.

Authors:  Franklin L Smith
Journal:  Urol Case Rep       Date:  2022-03-11
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.