HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Macha, D. B. Articles by Nelson, R. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Macha, D. B. Articles by Nelson, R. C.

Pigtail Catheters Used for Percutaneous Fluid Drainage: Comparison of Performance Characteristics¹

¹ From the Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. From the 2002 RSNA Annual Meeting. Received April 7, 2005; revision requested June 7; revision received August 1; final version accepted September 6. Address correspondence to D.B.M., 3405 Storey Lake Dr, Tyler, TX 75707 (e-mail: doug{at}machas.net).

Purpose: To compare the performance characteristics of various single-lumen all-purpose pigtail drainage catheters.

Materials and Methods: The following parameters were compared: flow rates between catheters of the same size, whether changing the fluid viscosity has any effect on catheter comparisons, the effect on flow of leaving an open three-way stopcock in the drainage pathway, the tendency of the catheters to kink, and catheter patency after kinking, as measured according to flow. All-purpose 8.0-, 8.3-, and 8.5-F (collectively referred to as 8-F); 10.0-, 10.2-, and 10.3-F (collectively referred to as 10-F); and 12.0-F pigtail drainage catheters from three manufacturers were evaluated. Data were compared by using two-tailed t tests after normal distributions were confirmed. P < .05 was considered to represent a significant difference.

Results: At comparison of the 8-F catheters, the C.R. Bard catheters demonstrated better flow rates than the Cook and Boston Scientific devices. Among the 10-F catheters, there were no significant differences in the flow rates of fluid with viscosity equivalent to that of water between the C.R. Bard and Boston Scientific catheters; however, both these catheter types demonstrated significantly (P < .05) better flow rates than the Cook devices. Among the 12-F catheters, the C.R. Bard catheters demonstrated significantly (P < .05) better flow rates than the other two catheter types. Changing the fluid viscosity caused no changes in comparison results. In all catheter groups, the presence of a stopcock significantly (P < .05) impaired flow. None of the evaluated catheters demonstrated a clear advantage in terms of patency or susceptibility to kinking.

Conclusion: At comparison of the in vitro performances of catheters from different manufacturers, the C.R. Bard 8.0-F and Cook 10.2-F catheters had comparable flow rates, and flow rates through the C.R. Bard and Boston Scientific 10.0-F catheters were comparable to flow rates through the Cook and Boston Scientific 12.0-F catheters. Varying viscosity had no effect on comparisons of catheter flow rates; however, a stopcock between the vacuum source and the catheter was noted to impair flow rates in all brands and sizes of evaluated catheters.

© RSNA, 2006