根据制造技术评估一次性内镜活检钳的性能。

Performance of disposable endoscopic forceps according to the manufacturing techniques.

机构信息

Digestive Disease Center, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, Korea.

Department of Pathology, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, Korea.

出版信息

Korean J Intern Med. 2019 May;34(3):530-538. doi: 10.3904/kjim.2017.191. Epub 2018 Mar 5.

DOI:10.3904/kjim.2017.191

PMID:29502363

原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6506737/

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.

摘要

背景/目的：为降低生产成本和感染风险，最近引入了采用简单制造技术生产的新型一次性活检钳。然而，制造技术的效果尚不清楚。本研究旨在评估根据制造技术哪种活检钳能够获得高质量标本。

方法

通过使用体外丁腈手套爆裂模型，我们比较了 8 种不同的一次性活检钳（一对采用切割法制造杯的活检钳[切割钳]，4 对采用压接法制造杯的活检钳[压接钳]和 3 对采用注塑法制造杯的活检钳[注塑钳]）的爆裂能力。使用体内猪模型，我们比较了活检钳的穿透深度和标本质量。

结果

在体外模型中，注塑钳的爆裂率明显高于其他钳（切割钳 25.0%；压接钳 17.5%；注塑钳 41.7%；p = 0.006）。在体内模型中，切割和压接钳并未提供比注塑钳更大的标本、更深的活检标本和更高的标本充足率（p = 0.2631、p = 0.5875 和 p = 0.2147）。然而，注塑钳的常见压碎伪影明显多于其他钳（切割钳 0%；压接钳 5.0%；注塑钳 43.3%；p = 0.0007）。