Endoscopic Forceps for Ureteroscopy: A Comparative In Vitro Analysis

ObjectiveTo evaluate the functional characteristics of different ureteroscopic graspers.MethodsThe Captura (2.8F, Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN), Platinum (3.0F, Bard Urological, Covington, GA), TriClaw (2.4F, UroGyn Medical, Inc., Valapraiso, IN), Graspit (2.6F, Boston Scientific, Natick, MA), and Boston Scientific Tricep (2.4F, 3.0F, and 3.0F non-retracting) graspers were tested. Opening dynamics were evaluated using high-resolution images. Grip strength was determined by measuring the maximum tensional force applied while grasping stone models attached to an inline load cell. Safety profile was evaluated by the maximum force required to perforate aluminum foil. Impact on ureteroscope deflection was assessed by measurement of maximum deflection (baseline = 247°) and bending radius after advancing each grasper through a flexible ureteroscope working channel. The Tukey test for inequality assuming unequal variance with Bonferroni adjustment was used to compare grip strength and perforation forces.ResultsThe Tricep (2.4F, 3.0F NR, and 3.0F) and Captura graspers required the least distance (7.9-8.1 mm) to attain a grasping width of 5 mm. When compared across all stone models, the TriClaw and Graspit had greater grip strengths than all other devices. The Captura (1.92 ± 0.43 N) and Tricep 2.4F (1.72 ± 0.88 N) required the greatest forces to perforate aluminum foil. Ureteroscope deflection was least impacted by the Tricep 2.4F (213°, 1.35 cm radius), Graspit (207°, 1.35 cm radius), TriClaw (206°, 1.3 cm radius), and all graspers could be deployed and operated at maximum deflection.ConclusionThere are significant differences in opening dynamics, grip strength, perforation forces, and ureteroscope deflection among ureteroscopic graspers that may predict clinical performance capabilities.