Premium
A comparative study of guidewire electrical resistance
Author(s) -
DESGRANDCHAMPS F.,
PEDRON P.,
HOFFMANN P.,
TEILLAC P.,
LE DUC A.
Publication year - 1997
Publication title -
british journal of urology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1464-410X
pISSN - 0007-1331
DOI - 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1997.00372.x
Subject(s) - polytetrafluoroethylene , electrical resistance and conductance , abrasion (mechanical) , materials science , electrical current , composite material , biomedical engineering , surgery , medicine , electrical engineering , engineering
Objective To evaluate the electrical resistance to current conduction of different guidewires used routinely in endourology and thus determine the risk of short circuits between the active electrode and the guide. Materials and methods Using a standard resistance meter, the electrical resistance of four different types of guidewires was measured. Pure stainless‐steel, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)‐painted, PTFE‐sheathed and hydrogel‐sheathed guidewires were tested, both when new and after mechanical abrasion of the external layer to reproduce their condition after use. Results The pure stainless‐steel guidewire had no resistance to electrical current. The electrical insulation of the PTFE‐painted guidewires was poor and was eliminated by mechanical abrasion of the paint. New PTFE‐sheathed and hydrogel‐sheathed guidewires had a safe electrical resistance (>10 kΩ) but this insulation was easily eliminated by mechanical abrasion of the external layer. Conclusions To minimize the risk of electrosurgical adverse effects during a guidewire‐assisted endoscopic procedure, the operator should preferably use a new guidewire for each procedure, use sheathed guidewires and ensure that the guidewire is in good condition, or cover it with a ureteric catheter, before applying current.