Hybrid guidewires: Analysis and comparison of the mechanical properties and safety profiles
Introduction: Hybrid guidewires are commonly used in urology due to the advantage of an atraumatic hydrophilic tip, which facilitates negotiating tight areas, coupled with an unkinkable nitinol core shaft that is easy to work over due to the Teflon coating. Our aim was to compare the physical and mechanical properties of five commercially available hybrid guidewires to assess their characteristics and functionality.
Methods: In vitro testing was performed on the following straighttipped 0.035 inch guidewires: Sensor™ (Boston Scientific), Solo™ Plus (Bard), UltraTrack (Olympus), Rio Tracer™ (Rocamed), and Motion™ (Cook). We evaluated characteristics impacting function (tip flexibility, shaft stiffness, lubricity) and safety (perforation force). Measurements included tip flexibility, lubricity, shaft buckling, and force required to perforate a sheet of aluminum foil.
Results: The Motion had the highest tip-bending force (p<0.00001). The Rio Tracer had the stiffest shaft (p<0.00001), followed by the Solo Plus and the Motion, which were significantly stiffer than the Sensor and UltraTrack (p<0.00001). The Solo Plus and UltraTrack had the greatest perforation force (p=0.00023), and the Rio Tracer had the lowest perforation force (p=0.016) when compared to the Sensor. There was no significant difference in frictional force between the five guidewires (p=0.1516).
Conclusions: The Solo Plus and UltraTrack required the greatest force to perforate, which conveys a higher safety margin. The RioTracer is the stiffest guidewire, which may be beneficial for instrument insertion with the tradeoff of having a lower perforation force. The clinical significance of higher tip-bending forces (unfavourable) and higher shaft-bending forces (favourable) deserve further investigation.
You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:
- Post the Article on any Web site
- Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
- Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
- Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.
The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.
You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.
The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:
- That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
- That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
- That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
- That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.