PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 2393821

Which balloon embolectomy catheter?

Abstract

This study compared seven makes of balloon embolectomy catheter currently available, testing the most commonly used 4 Fr catheters. The volume of fluid and inflation pressure required to burst balloons of each type were measured. All balloons showed a similar shape of inflation curve, but compliance varied considerably, and the pressure required to burst different balloon types varied from 1060 to 1920 cmH2O. Two balloon types consistently fragmented when they burst in free space. On a specially designed mechanical rig balloon catheters were pulled through a 6 mm tube containing a fixed stenosis, with continuous measurement of traction force and intraballoon pressure. Traction force varied from 34 to 129 g (median 40 g) during passage along the tube, and from 254 to 463 g (median 350 g) during passage through the stenosis. The shear force imparted by the balloon to the tube wall was also calculated. This study provides comparative data which may help to guide surgeons in their choice of balloon embolectomy catheter.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P G Niblett, J M Fleischl, W B Campbell. 1990. Which balloon embolectomy catheter?. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800770829

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Twisted-pair RF coil suitable for locating the track of a catheter.

An RF coil, made by twisting a conventional wire loop, was tuned to form an extended sensor to provide an effective method of showing the track of a catheter. A twisted-pair coil can be made small enough in diameter to pass through needles in common clinical use. The coil has a very small field of view and in transmit/receive operation has minimal effect on the magnetization of the surrounding tissue.

Catheterization

Complications associated with enteral nutrition using catheter jejunostomy after esophagectomy.

The present study was conducted on 78 patients, encountered over a 7-year period, who had a catheter-feeding jejunostomy placed at the time of thoracoabdominal esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. A broad-based attachment of the jejunal wall to the peritoneum at the place of entry of the catheter was used. Enteral nutrition was begun an average of 10 days after the operation, the caloric content was increased gradually, and the mean duration was 69 days. There were three patients who suffered from local skin erosion at the site of catheter entry, and seven who developed diarrhea and/or a feeling of abdominal fullness, but none of the patients showed any signs of peritonitis or ileus. The morbidity rates related to enteral nutrients and placement of the catheter jejunostomy were 8.9% and 3.8%, respectively. These findings demonstrate that a broad-based attachment of the jejunal wall to the peritoneum at the place of entry of the catheter is useful for preventing leakage or twisting of the jejunum, and for reducing the incidence and severity of the complications of catheter jejunostomy feeding.

Catheterization