In-vitro dilatation force comparison of existing balloon dilatation catheters for gastrointestinal use

J. Goldstein, Jamie S Barkin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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 languageEnglish
JournalGastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume45
Issue number4
StatePublished - Dec 1 1997

Fingerprint

Dilatation
Catheters
Body Temperature
Baths
Metals
Pressure
Water
Research
In Vitro Techniques
Therapeutics

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 journalArticle

@article{b766996fe5ef46c8aad785d6ebe3f765,
title = "In-vitro dilatation force comparison of existing balloon dilatation catheters for gastrointestinal use",
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.",
author = "J. Goldstein and Barkin, {Jamie S}",
year = "1997",
month = "12",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "45",
journal = "Gastrointestinal Endoscopy",
issn = "0016-5107",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "4",

}

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

VL - 45

JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

SN - 0016-5107

IS - 4

ER -