Systematic evaluation of hybrid guidewires: Shaft stiffness, lubricity, and tip configuration - Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a comparison of physical and mechanical properties for 5 commonly used guidewires to assess advantages of wires for specific applications.

METHODS: Tests on guidewires (0.035" diameter; straight, flexible tip) included tip bending, shaft buckling, lubricity, and tip puncture measurements. Guidewires included 2 hybrid wires: the U-Nite (Bard Urological, Covington, GA) and the Sensor (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA). Our aim was to compare the stiffness of these hybrid wires with the standard Amplatz SuperStiff (Boston Scientific). Our second aim was to compare the hydrophilic tip of the hybrid wires with 2 traditional hydrophilic guidewires: the NiCore (Bard Urological) and RadiFocus glidewire (Boston Scientific).

RESULTS: The Amplatz SuperStiff had a significantly stiffer shaft than either hybrid wire, with a buckling force of 1.81 ± 0.91 N compared with the Sensor (0.80 ± 0.29 N, P = .0002) and the U-Nite (0.77 ± 0.29 N, P < .0001). The Boston Scientific guidewire tips were less stiff than the Bard guidewires, requiring up to 48% less force to bend when encountering resistance (P < .0001). The U-Nite had the highest lubricity (0.09 ± 0.03 N, P < .0001) and roundest tip of all the guidewires tested. The RadiFocus required the greatest puncture force (1.80 ± 0.27 N, P < .0001) of all the guidewires tested.

CONCLUSION: Hybrid wires offer a combination of a stiffer shaft and hydrophilic tip. The Amplatz SuperStiff remains the stiffest wire and as such is best suited for placement of ureteral access sheaths or larger stents. The Boston Scientific wires require less force to "bend" around a point of obstruction compared with the Bard wires. The Boston Scientific RadiFocus requires the greatest force to puncture aluminum foil.

Written by:
Sarkissian C, Korman E, Hendlin K, Monga M.   Are you the author?
Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Reference: Urology. 2012 Mar;79(3):513-7.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.10.017

PubMed Abstract
PMID: 22173176 Endourology Section