Abstract
Balloon dilatation is a standard therapy for gastrointestinal luminal narrowings. The choice of hydrostatic balloon dilator brand that has been used was arbitrary. The purpose of this invitro study was to compare the dilating force of hydrostatic balloon dilators. METHODS: The balloon dilator brands tested were Achiever™ (Microvasive, Natick, MA), Eliminator™ (CR Bard, Inc., Tewksbury, MA) and MaxForce TTS™ (Microvasive, Natick, MA). Diameter sizes of each brand tested were: 6mm, 8mm, 10mm, 12mm, 15mm and 18mm. Each balloon was placed in a water bath at body temperature and inflated to the manufacturer's suggested pressure within a Chatillon Digital Force Gauge (DFGS50). Dilatation force was measured five times with each balloon dilator brand within a fixed metal narrowing that was 2mm smaller than each maximum balloon diameter. RESULTS: BALLOON BRAND AVERAGE RADIAL FORCE (lbs) STANDARD DEVIATION Achiever™ 10.9 0.8 Eliminator™ 28.3 3.5 MaxForce TTS™ 34.5 7.0 CONCLUSIONS: The MaxForce TTS™ delivered significantly higher average dilating force than the Eliminator™ and Achiever™ (P<0.05). The Eliminator™ delivered a significantly higher average dilating force than Achiever™ (P<0.05). The choice of dilator is no longer an arbitrary decision if one assumes that dilating force is clinically important. However, further research must be done to determine the effect of dilating force on patient outcomes.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Gastrointestinal Endoscopy |
| Volume | 45 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| State | Published - Dec 1 1997 |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Gastroenterology
Cite this
In-vitro dilatation force comparison of existing balloon dilatation catheters for gastrointestinal use. / Goldstein, J.; Barkin, Jamie S.
In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vol. 45, No. 4, 01.12.1997.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - In-vitro dilatation force comparison of existing balloon dilatation catheters for gastrointestinal use
AU - Goldstein, J.
AU - Barkin, Jamie S
PY - 1997/12/1
Y1 - 1997/12/1
N2 - Balloon dilatation is a standard therapy for gastrointestinal luminal narrowings. The choice of hydrostatic balloon dilator brand that has been used was arbitrary. The purpose of this invitro study was to compare the dilating force of hydrostatic balloon dilators. METHODS: The balloon dilator brands tested were Achiever™ (Microvasive, Natick, MA), Eliminator™ (CR Bard, Inc., Tewksbury, MA) and MaxForce TTS™ (Microvasive, Natick, MA). Diameter sizes of each brand tested were: 6mm, 8mm, 10mm, 12mm, 15mm and 18mm. Each balloon was placed in a water bath at body temperature and inflated to the manufacturer's suggested pressure within a Chatillon Digital Force Gauge (DFGS50). Dilatation force was measured five times with each balloon dilator brand within a fixed metal narrowing that was 2mm smaller than each maximum balloon diameter. RESULTS: BALLOON BRAND AVERAGE RADIAL FORCE (lbs) STANDARD DEVIATION Achiever™ 10.9 0.8 Eliminator™ 28.3 3.5 MaxForce TTS™ 34.5 7.0 CONCLUSIONS: The MaxForce TTS™ delivered significantly higher average dilating force than the Eliminator™ and Achiever™ (P<0.05). The Eliminator™ delivered a significantly higher average dilating force than Achiever™ (P<0.05). The choice of dilator is no longer an arbitrary decision if one assumes that dilating force is clinically important. However, further research must be done to determine the effect of dilating force on patient outcomes.
AB - Balloon dilatation is a standard therapy for gastrointestinal luminal narrowings. The choice of hydrostatic balloon dilator brand that has been used was arbitrary. The purpose of this invitro study was to compare the dilating force of hydrostatic balloon dilators. METHODS: The balloon dilator brands tested were Achiever™ (Microvasive, Natick, MA), Eliminator™ (CR Bard, Inc., Tewksbury, MA) and MaxForce TTS™ (Microvasive, Natick, MA). Diameter sizes of each brand tested were: 6mm, 8mm, 10mm, 12mm, 15mm and 18mm. Each balloon was placed in a water bath at body temperature and inflated to the manufacturer's suggested pressure within a Chatillon Digital Force Gauge (DFGS50). Dilatation force was measured five times with each balloon dilator brand within a fixed metal narrowing that was 2mm smaller than each maximum balloon diameter. RESULTS: BALLOON BRAND AVERAGE RADIAL FORCE (lbs) STANDARD DEVIATION Achiever™ 10.9 0.8 Eliminator™ 28.3 3.5 MaxForce TTS™ 34.5 7.0 CONCLUSIONS: The MaxForce TTS™ delivered significantly higher average dilating force than the Eliminator™ and Achiever™ (P<0.05). The Eliminator™ delivered a significantly higher average dilating force than Achiever™ (P<0.05). The choice of dilator is no longer an arbitrary decision if one assumes that dilating force is clinically important. However, further research must be done to determine the effect of dilating force on patient outcomes.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33748980096&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33748980096&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:33748980096
VL - 45
JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
SN - 0016-5107
IS - 4
ER -