Performance of disposable endoscopic forceps according to the manufacturing techniques

다국어 초록 (Multilingual 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).
Conclusions: The molding forceps provided lower performance than the cutting and pressing forceps in terms of crush artifact.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 Tytgat GN, "Technicalities of endoscopic biopsy" 27 : 683-688, 1995

2 Yang R, "Prospective, randomized comparison of disposable and reusable biopsy forceps in gastrointestinal endoscopy" 40 : 671-674, 1994

3 Alfa MJ, "Impact of FDA policy change on the reuse of single-use medical devices in Michigan hospitals" 32 : 337-341, 2004

4 O'Connor HJ, "Gastrointestinal endoscopy : infection and disinfection" 24 : 1067-1077, 1983

5 Kaneko E, "Evaluation of the new giant-biopsy forceps in the diagnosis of mucosal and submucosal gastric lesions" 15 : 322-326, 1983

6 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, "Enforcement priorities for single-use devices reprocessed by third parties and hospitals" FDA

7 Birnie GG, "Endoscopic transmission of hepatitis B virus" 24 : 171-174, 1983

8 Ladas SD, "Effect of forceps size and mode of orientation on endoscopic small bowel biopsy evaluation" 40 : 51-55, 1994

9 Danesh BJ, "Comparison of weight, depth, and diagnostic adequacy of specimens obtained with 16 different biopsy forceps designed for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy" 26 : 227-231, 1985

10 Sussman DA, "Comparison of performance characteristics of oval cup forceps versus serrated jaw forceps in gastric biopsy" 61 : 2338-2343, 2016

11 Fireman Z, "Biopsy forceps: reusable or disposable?" 21 : 1089-1092, 2006