| Literature DB >> 35571475 |
Satoshi Ono1,2, Kyohei Maejima1, Shun Ito1, Shosuke Hosaka1, Kiyotaka Umeki1, Shin-Ichiro Sato1, Kota Akamine1,2,3, Daichi Asai3, Mitsuhiro Fujishiro2.
Abstract
Background and study aims Snare devices play an important role in treatment of intestinal polyps. However, there are no objective measurements for the characteristics of the various types of snare devices. Materials and methods Seven types of snare devices from four manufacturers were evaluated based on original measurements. The evaluated factors were stiffness, cutting quality, and change in force required for cutting depending on sheath shape. The latter two factors were evaluated by measuring the force required to cut 20 % gelatin cylinders, which simulated intestinal polyps. The cutting sharpness was evaluated by observing the sectional surface of cut gelatin cylinders using a stereomicroscope. The correlations between these measurements and characteristics of the snare devices were investigated. Results A strong positive correlation, with an R 2 value of 0.863, was shown between the force required to cut gelatin cylinders and loop wire diameter. Loop wire diameter also had a strong correlation, with an R 2 value of 0.7997, with the change in force required for cutting gelatin cylinders depending on sheath shape. No correlations were detected between loop stiffness and characteristics of snare devices. The edge-enhanced image revealed that the rougher surfaces of the gelatin cylinders were cut by snares with a thicker diameter. Conclusions Thinner loop wire may provide higher performance in cold snare polypectomy in an experimental model. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35571475 PMCID: PMC9106429 DOI: 10.1055/a-1793-9232
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endosc Int Open ISSN: 2196-9736
Summary of characteristics of snare devices.
| Snare devices | Longitudinal diameter of loop (mm) | Transverse diameter of loop (mm) | Diameter of loop wire (mm) | Diameter of main wire (mm) | Internal diameter of sheath (mm) | External diameter of sheath (mm) | Clearance |
| A: Stella Cold | 26.00 | 11.08 | 0.24 | 0.93 | 1.58 | 2.40 | 0.65 |
| B: Hot Snare Oval | 32.33 | 15.48 | 0.48 | 0.81 | 1.59 | 2.38 | 0.78 |
| C: Hot Snare Hexagon | 34.31 | 15.03 | 0.45 | 0.81 | 1.59 | 2.38 | 0.78 |
| D: Exacto | 21.13 | 7.00 | 0.31 | 0.79 | 1.70 | 2.35 | 0.91 |
| E: Snare Master Plus | 19.27 | 9.80 | 0.31 | 0.91 | 1.56 | 2.38 | 0.65 |
| F: Captivator Cold | 19.82 | 7.04 | 0.33 | 0.69 | 1.64 | 2.40 | 0.95 |
| G: Pentax Prototype Snare | 26.62 | 10.10 | 0.37 | 0.91 | 1.58 | 2.40 | 0.67 |
Fig. 1Scheme of measurements. a Evaluation of loop stiffness. b Cutting a gelatin cylinder through a slit of metallic plate. c Evaluation of change in force required for cutting depending on sheath shape.
Summary of measurements of snare devices.
| Snares devices | Stiffness (g) | Force required to cut gelatin cylinders | |||
| Direct cutting (N) | Straight position (N) | Bending position (N) | Gap of bending-straight (N) | ||
| A: Stella Cold | 3.35 ± 0.87 | 2.63 ± 0.40 | 3.30 ± 0.29 | 3.6 ± 0.29 | 0.3 |
| B: Hot Snare Oval | 7.96 ± 0.82 | 3.59 ± 0.40 | 3.13 ± 0.36 | 5.62 ± 0.82 | 2.49 |
| C: Hot Snare Hexagon | 15.95 ± 1.79 | 3.86 ± 0.56 | 4.54 ± 0.76 | 6.65 ± 1.07 | 2.11 |
| D: Exacto | 8.32 ± 1.38 | 2.92 ± 0.25 | 2.64 ± 0.45 | 3.33 ± 0.85 | 0.69 |
| E: Snare Master Plus | 3.02 ± 0.58 | 2.89 ± 0.44 | 3.55 ± 0.42 | 4.53 ± 0.45 | 0.98 |
| F: Captivator Cold | 15.66 ± 1.52 | 2.73 ± 0.37 | 4.05 ± 0.45 | 4.06 ± 0.35 | 0.01 |
| G: Pentax Prototype Snare | 3.80 ± 0.33 | 3.22 ± 0.57 | 3.62 ± 0.26 | 5.17 ± 0.45 | 1.55 |
Fig. 2Scatter plot of measurements. a Loop stiffness vs. loop wire diameter and longitudinal length of loop. b Force required to cut gelatin cylinders versus loop wire diameter, transverse length, and longitudinal length of loop. c Change in force required for cutting depending on shape of sheath vs. loop wire diameter, transverse length, longitudinal length of loop, main wire diameter, internal diameter of sheath, and clearance.
Fig. 3Section surfaces of cut gelatin cylinders.