These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Performance of disposable endoscopic forceps according to the manufacturing techniques.
    Author: Kwon CI, Kim G, Moon JP, Yun H, Ko WJ, Cho JY, Hong SP.
    Journal: Korean J Intern Med; 2019 May; 34(3):530-538. PubMed ID: 29502363.
    Abstract:
    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). CONCLUSION: The molding forceps provided lower performance than the cutting and pressing forceps in terms of crush artifact.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]