Literature DB >> 17905092

Physical characteristics of next-generation ureteral access sheaths: buckling and kinking.

Renato N Pedro1, Kari Hendlin, William K Durfee, Manoj Monga.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate physical characteristics of next-generation access sheaths that impact clinical failure.
METHODS: Testing of the Cook Flexor (12/14 Fr x 35 cm, Cook), ACMI UroPass (12/14 Fr x 38 cm, ACMI), Bard Aquaguide (11/13 Fr x 35 cm Bard), and Boston Scientific Navigator (11/13 Fr x 36 cm BSCI-11, 13/15 Fr x 36 cm BSCI-13) was performed on a linear motion stage driven by a stepper motor with a resolution of 5 microm per step. Force was measured at a sampling rate of 5 Hz with a Wagner FDIX digital force gauge. Friction force was measured by pulling sheaths at 2.5 mm/s through 2.78 mm (8.3 Fr) holes drilled in 36 mm thick biologic material. Buckling force was measured as the force required to compress a 25-cm length of sheath in a clamp-clamp configuration during a 30 mm move. Kinking was measured as the slope of the force-deflection curve for wall compression over a deflection of 2 mm.
RESULTS: No significant difference was noted in the friction force of the Cook (1.2 N), Bard (1.3 N), BSCI-11 (1.0 N), and BSCI-13 (1.0 N). Buckling force was significantly greater for the Cook (5.1 +/- 0.49 N) than the Bard (2.8 +/- 0.31 N), BSCI-11 (2.0 +/- 0.25 N), ACMI (3.2 +/- 0.33 N), and BSCI-13 (2.9 +/- 0.31 N). Kinking force was significantly lower with the Bard (9 N/mm) than the Cook (42 N/mm), BSCI-11 (41 N/mm), and BSCI-13 (30 N/mm), and significantly higher with the ACMI (83 N/mm).
CONCLUSIONS: The Cook Flexor sheath is most resistant to buckling forces that would predict failure to advance up the ureter. The Bard Aquaglide is most likely to kink after removal of the inner obturator, whereas the ACMI Uropass is most resistant to kinking.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17905092     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.04.043

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  7 in total

Review 1.  Ureteroscopy from the recent past to the near future.

Authors:  José Manuel Reis Santos
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2017-11-29       Impact factor: 3.436

2.  Instrumentation in endourology.

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

3.  Single-center clinical comparison of two reinforced ureteral access sheaths for retrograde ureteroscopic treatment of urinary lithiasis.

Authors:  Rajinikanth Ayyathurai; Prashanth Kanagarajah; John Shields; Ezekiel Young; Alina Alvarez; Vincent G Bird
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2011-06-25       Impact factor: 2.370

4.  Update on ureteroscopy instrumentation.

Authors:  Renato N Pedro; Manoj Monga
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2010-07

Review 5.  Use of ureteral access sheaths in ureteroscopy.

Authors:  Adam G Kaplan; Michael E Lipkin; Charles D Scales; Glenn M Preminger
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-11-24       Impact factor: 14.432

6.  Ureteral access sheaths: a comprehensive comparison of physical and mechanical properties.

Authors:  Nishant Patel; Manoj Monga
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2018 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.541

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
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.