[Forceps operations in obstetrics; experiences with 1303 forceps operations].
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Delivery, Obstetric↗
SEARCH · Search PubMed
Results for “FORCEPS”
Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
[(1) Forceps for bloodless extraction of ureteral calculi; (2) forceps for bloodless extraction of ureteral calculi or foreign bodies].
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Calculi↗
[Use of a serrated ear-vessel forceps (pike-jawed forceps) in tendon anastomosis by the Pulvertaft method].
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Surgical Instruments↗
Prospective, randomized comparison of disposable and reusable biopsy forceps in gastrointestinal endoscopy.
We prospectively compared biopsy specimens obtained with reusable and disposable stainless steel biopsy forceps of varying sizes and configurations. Six types of forceps were used: (1) jumbo reusable forceps, (2) jumbo disposable forceps with a Teflon sheath, (3) regular reusable forceps, (4) regular disposable forceps with a Teflon sheath, (5) regular long-jaw disposable forceps, and 6) regular long-jaw disposable forceps with a Teflon sheath. "Jumbo" forceps were those requiring an endoscopic biopsy channel of at least 3.3 mm. "Regular" forceps were those requiring only a 2.8-mm channel. Two biopsy specimens were obtained with each of the six forceps from normal-appearing stomach, duodenum, and sigmoid colon (25 sets at each location). Mixed and coded specimens were scored by a single pathologist for volume (height, width, and length) and histologic depth. Reusable and disposable jumbo forceps yielded biopsy specimens of similar volumes (30 +/- 1 mm3 and 33 +/- 1 mm3, respectively) and histologic depth (grades of 3.3 +/- 0.1 and 3.5 +/- 0.1, respectively). In comparison, the regular-sized biopsy forceps gave specimens with half the volume of those obtained by the jumbo forceps (reusable, 13 +/- 1 mm3; disposable with Teflon sheath, 15 +/- 1 mm3; long-jaw, 16 +/- 1 mm2; and long-jaw with Teflon sheath, 17 +/- 1 mm3). However, the histologic depths of specimens obtained with the regular disposable forceps were the same as those of specimens obtained with the jumbo forceps. Regular reusable biopsy forceps yielded specimens with the smallest overall volume and histologic depth. We conclude that disposable forceps are equivalent to reusable forceps and that the two types can be used interchangeably in gastrointestinal endoscopy. We recommend the use of jumbo forceps whenever possible because they provide biopsy specimens that are double the size of those obtained with regular forceps.
Biopsy↗
A cost and performance evaluation of disposable and reusable biopsy forceps in GI endoscopy.
BACKGROUND: Biopsy forceps are widely used in gastrointestinal endoscopy, and yet few data exist on the usage and costs associated with disposable versus reusable forceps. METHODS: We prospectively measured the costs and operational performance of disposable and reusable forceps in 200 biopsy sessions; 100 sessions were performed using disposable forceps and 100 sessions were performed using reusable forceps. Total cost per use of the reusable forceps, including acquisition costs plus the costs of reprocessing per established guidelines, was determined. At the end of the study, the reusable forceps were disassembled to determine the cause of mechanical failures. RESULTS: The total cost per use of the disposable forceps was $38. For the reusable forceps, the acquisition cost per forceps was $415 and the total reprocessing cost was $16.56 +/- 0.07 per forceps. For 10, 15 and 20 uses, reusable forceps costs were $58.06, $44.23, and $37.31, respectively. Reusable forceps malfunction at 11 to 15 uses was 5%; at 16 to 20 uses was 25%; and at 21 to 25 uses reached 80% (p < 0.001). Dismantling of the reusable forceps at the end of the study demonstrated coiled sheath kinking, rust in the forceps closure mechanism, bent spikes, and biomaterial contamination. CONCLUSIONS: Up to 15 to 20 uses, disposable and reusable forceps costs were similar. If reusable forceps are used more than 20 times, then they are less expensive. However, in this range of uses, reusable biopsy forceps performance diminishes. With disposable biopsy forceps costing less than $40, cost differences between reusable and disposable forceps are minimal.
Biopsy↗
An observer-blinded, prospective, randomized comparison of forceps for endoscopic esophageal biopsy.
BACKGROUND: The designs of 2 new biopsy forceps attempt to address the difficulty of obtaining esophageal biopsy specimens. The angled design is a modified version of currently used straight forceps. The lateral cup forceps has a straight shaft with a bullet-shaped cuffing head for a tangential approach. METHODS: Seventy-five patients were enrolled in a prospective study in which 3 different forceps were compared in random order: a reusable straight-shaft spiked forceps, a reusable angled-shaft spiked forceps, and a disposable lateral cup forceps. Two biopsy specimens were obtained with each device per patient. Two pathologists, blinded as to forceps used, graded the tissue samples for size, histologic depth, shear artifact, crush artifact, and adequacy for diagnosis. Data were compared by using multivariate analysis of variance and Scheffé's method. RESULTS: Analysis of variance showed overall differences in specimen size, histologic depth score, and diagnostic adequacy (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference for crush (p = 0.459) or shear artifacts (p = 0.243). Pair-wise comparisons demonstrated that tissue samples obtained with the straight forceps were larger (p = 0.020) and deeper (p = 0.040) than the angled forceps. These 2 designs were similar in terms of diagnostic adequacy. Biopsy specimens obtained with the straight forceps were larger (p < 0.001) and deeper (p < 0.001) than those obtained with the lateral cup forceps. Both the straight and angled forceps were superior to the lateral cup forceps in terms of diagnostic adequacy (p = 0.020, p = 0.008, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The reusable straight-shaft spiked forceps provides larger and deeper esophageal biopsy specimens than either the angled or lateral cup forceps. The angled forceps provides specimens of similar adequacy for diagnosis compared with the straight forceps. The lateral cup forceps should not be used in the esophagus.
Adult↗
[History and sidelights on the forceps].
The author starts by showing that the first forceps were originally designed to handle hot metal in founderies and that the word derived from "formus" (hot) and "capere" (to take). The author, Professor Dumont, tries to trace the history of the development of modern forceps, discussing whether the Arabs or such well known authors of classical works as Roesslin, Raynald, Rueff and Rousset knew of the instrument or whether they just described instruments of destruction. Crainz in 1941 had written an article to discuss whether the early Romans had forceps and came to no firm conclusion. Speert in 1957 said that a live baby had been born earlier than the 17th Century, possibly as early as the 2nd or 3rd century of the Roman empire, i.e. over 300 years before Jesus-Christ, by forceps. The description is given of a bas-relief depicting forceps delivery but no one knows whether the bas-relief is genuine or not. The discovery of the Chamberlen forceps in 1813 at Woodham Mortimer Hall in Essex, England, and the lengthy description of how the Chamberlens kept the secret of the invention of the forceps over several generations is very well described. Then follows the story of Jean Palfyn's "mains de fer" which led later to Levret and his long curved forceps. Returning to England, the authors describes how William Smellie covered his forceps with leather so that the patients should not feel the cold metal or hear the clink of the handles. The author then quotes Dr Slop, who appears in Laurence Sterne's "Tristram Shandy" and who knew the Smellie's forceps. Sacombe was an arch enemy of instrumental delivery. The role of the Dane Saxtorph, and how Antoine Dubois delivered Napoleon's son, the future King of Rome, by forceps, is reviewed. Madame La Chapelle and her work as well as that of Scanzoni, and finally of Simpson who first used anaesthesia after inventing a forceps, continues the history. Great names such as Pajot, Tarnier with his axis-traction forceps and finally Barton, Piper and Kielland with their inventions are all described in this beautiful history of forceps.
Extraction, Obstetrical↗
A performance, safety and cost comparison of reusable and disposable endoscopic biopsy forceps: a prospective, randomized trial.
BACKGROUND: Many gastroenterologists believe that disposable forceps are more expensive than reusable forceps. It has been shown, however, that cross contamination and spread of infection are possible with reusable forceps. We conducted a prospective, randomized study to evaluate the performance, safety and cost of reusable versus disposable biopsy forceps. METHODS: Endoscopists were randomly assigned reusable or disposable biopsy forceps during upper and lower endoscopy. Forceps were evaluated for ease of passage through the endoscope, ease of opening and closing, adequacy of sample, and overall evaluation following the endoscopy using an ordinal scale. The cost per biopsy session was calculated using the following formula: (Acquisition cost + Reprocessing costs)/Number of biopsy sessions. RESULTS: Disposable forceps received a predominantly excellent rating versus a predominantly good rating for reusable forceps. Disposable forceps were also found to be more cost-effective than reusable forceps with an average savings of $5. 94 per biopsy session. Examination of reusable forceps revealed residual patient debris despite "adequate" cleansing. CONCLUSIONS: Disposable forceps outperformed reusable forceps and were found to be more cost-effective. Residual patient debris on reusable forceps may pose a risk of cross contamination and the spread of infection.
Biopsy↗
Biopsy forceps: disposable or reusable?
Current debate surrounds the cost-effectiveness of disposable and reusable biopsy forceps. Although a complex and arduous task, performing a cost analysis may be necessary to determine which forcep type is more cost-effective. Costs associated with disposable biopsy forceps include their initial cost as well as storage and disposal costs. In addition to initial cost, costs associated with reusable biopsy forceps include reprocessing, maintenance, and repair costs. Estimating the number of times forceps are likely to be reused is also essential to evaluating the cost-effectiveness of reusable biopsy forceps. In general, once a reusable biopsy forcep performs a threshold number of procedures, it becomes more cost-effective than a disposable forcep. While reusable biopsy forceps may be more suitable and cost-effective for larger gastrointestinal endoscopy centers that perform many procedures per day, the convenience of disposable biopsy forceps may make them the more appropriate choice for centers that are smaller and perform only a few procedures each day. Due to significant decreases in the initial cost of disposable biopsy forceps, the cost-effectiveness of reusable biopsy forceps is waning. This article reviews the various issues associated with disposable versus reusable biopsy forceps and provides readers with guidelines for evaluating the appropriateness of both forcep designs in their unique practice setting.
Biopsy↗
[Some considerations on forceps delivery with excenter handle (author's transl)].
The introduction of electronic monitoring techniques in delivery increasingly has lead to the use of vaginal surgery in delivery. Vacuum and forceps extraction, in our view, do not compete with each other. Years ago forceps extraction was decisively improved by introducing the axial traction forceps. However, we believe that this technique has not been given due attention and is not applied widely enough. In vacuum extraction and in forceps deliveries without axial traction considerable part of the force is exerted in the direction of the symphysis. When using the excentric handle forceps, it is necessary in addition to the traction and pressure components to include the lever action. This is a so-called couple of forces. The additional torque involved in the use of an axial traction forceps shifts the fetal head during extraction in the direction of the hollow of the sacrum. The force needed for this shift and the progression of the head is many times less than that required for conventional forceps extraction. This is due to the absence of the component directed at the symphysis which impedes delivery. The axial traction forceps may also be used in case of the infant's abnormal positioning of the head. In case of a transverse position of the fetal head, a special fastener on the forceps makes it possible to use an excentric handle on the traction hook of the Kielland forceps and thus render possible rotation of the fetal head from the transverse position. The extentric handle in forceps extraction is optimal in order to overcome increased mechanical resistance to delivery. Adjustment of the handles to all types of forceps being used today is possible. From the results mentioned it is clear that the use of the axial traction forceps constitutes a valuable contribution toward declining perinatal mortality rates.
Apgar Score↗
A comparison of three types of biopsy forceps in the endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's oesophagus.
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Periodic endoscopic biopsy surveillance is recommended for selected patients with Barrett's oesophagus. A new angled swing-jaw forceps has become available which is said to facilitate tangential oesophageal biopsy sampling. We examined the size and quality of oesophageal biopsies obtained with the forceps of angled design in comparison with the large cup disposable forceps and the conventional reusable upper gastrointestinal forceps. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective comparative study, three biopsies were taken at each of three levels, using a different design of forceps at each level, in each of 48 patients undergoing endoscopic surveillance. The order in which the forceps were used was randomized. A pathologist assessed the size and quality of each set of biopsies obtained. RESULTS: The mean biopsy diameter was significantly greater at 3.00 mm with the angled forceps (P < 0.01), in comparison with 2.52 mm with the elliptical forceps and 2.07 mm with the conventional forceps. Fewer biopsies obtained with the angled forceps were graded as inadequate (8.3 %) compared with those obtained using the disposable large cup and conventional forceps (25 % and 22.9 %, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The design of forceps used influences the size and quality of tissue obtained during endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's oesophagus. The angled swing-jaw forceps are recommended as the most suitable for this purpose.
Adult↗
The Hay's flexion rotation obstetric forceps: reestablishing relevance in modern obstetrics.
A prospective evaluation of 140 forceps deliveries with the Hay's flexion rotation obstetric forceps was undertaken over a 5-year period. The Hay's forceps was used for a variety of indications and included outlet forceps application in 35.7%, low or midforceps application in 29.3% with forceps rotation in 16.4%, 19.3% of applications for an aftercoming head and 19.3% applications at caesarean section. Outlet forceps deliveries had maternal and neonatal outcomes comparable with the Wrigley's short obstetric forceps. Midforceps applications were compared to the Simpson's long forceps, with maternal morbidity at 21% being significantly less, blade marks being the only neonatal morbidity and the Apgar scores being significantly higher with the Hay's forceps. Every forceps application at caesarean section resulted in an easy delivery. Thus the Hay's forceps with innovations such as parallelism and flexion potential could revalidate the role of the forceps in contemporary obstetrics.
Cesarean Section↗
Influence of endoscopic biopsy forceps characteristics on tissue specimens: results of a prospective randomized study.
BACKGROUND: A large variety of endoscopic biopsy forceps are commercially available. However, little is known regarding the influence of forceps characteristics such as disposability, size, shape, and presence of a needle on the adequacy of the specimens for histologic diagnosis. Our aim was to analyze in a prospective, randomized, pathologist-blinded study the performance of different biopsy forceps. METHODS: Twelve biopsy forceps were tested, 6 each at upper endoscopy and colonoscopy. Two biopsy specimens were obtained with each forceps, for a total of 12 specimens per patient. The tissue samples were examined for the following parameters: weight (mg), size (mm3), depth, crush artifact, sheering effect, and adequacy of the specimens for histologic information (0 = inadequate, 1 = suboptimal, and 2 = adequate). RESULTS: Fifty-five patients undergoing routine upper or lower gastrointestinal endoscopy were included in the study, and a total of 624 tissue samples were available for analysis. Overall, disposable forceps provided specimens of greater size and depth. At upper endoscopy, alligator-shaped forceps improved the depth of the sample as did the absence of a needle within the cup. These factors, however, had no impact on the specimens obtained at colonoscopy. When the adequacy of the specimens was assessed for histologic diagnosis, no significant difference was noted between any of the individual forceps, although collectively oval-shaped forceps were superior to alligator-shaped forceps at colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The biopsy forceps currently available in the market are equally efficient in providing histologic diagnosis. The primary consideration when selecting an endoscopic biopsy forceps, therefore, should be the cost and ease of use and not any perceived advantage in performance.
Adult↗
Transverse arrest: a review of outcomes of rotational forceps and cesarean delivery at a single center.
Objective: To assess whether Kielland forceps rotational delivery causes a significant increase in maternal or perinatal morbidity in comparison with cesarean delivery in the clinical situation of transverse arrest. Rotational forceps delivery has been reported to have unacceptably high maternal and neonatal complication rates when compared with either spontaneous vaginal delivery or non-rotational forceps delivery. Clinically, however, we considered the more relevant comparison between Kielland rotational forceps delivery and cesarean delivery as these are generally the two modes of delivery for the fetus in transverse arrest.Study Design: The charts of all the mothers delivered by Kielland forceps or cesarean delivery for the main indication of transverse arrest between July 1995 and June 1996 were reviewed. The following were evaluated: Apgar scores at 1 and 5 minutes, cord pH, birth weight, neonatal superficial facial laceration or bruising, bone or nerve injuries, maternal injuries, 3rd and 4th degree perineal or vaginal lacerations, post-partum fever. Statistical analysis was by chi(2) (for Apgar scores), two-tailed Fisher Exact test (for post-partum fever), and t test (for birth weight and cord pH). A P value <.05 was considered statistically significant.Results: Fifty-two Kielland forceps and 30 cesarean deliveries were performed. One-minute Apgar scores of less than or equal to 7 were noted in 11.5% and 6.7% of the forceps and cesarean section groups, respectively (P = NS); mean arterial cord pH was 7.26 for both groups; no cases of post-partum fever were noted in the forceps versus 16% in the cesarean group (P <.05); the mean weight was 3,316 and 3,569 g for the forceps and cesarean group, respectively (P <.05). The Kielland group was also characterized by the following: 19 facial bruising and 2 temporary facial nerve injury (resolved by the time of discharge), 3 perineal lacerations, and 3 vaginal tears. No blood transfusions were required for either group.Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study that compares rotational forceps delivery for transverse arrest with its true clinical alternative, cesarean delivery.No significant difference in cord pH and Apgar scores were noted between the two groups. The birth weight was greater and post-partum fever was more common in the cesarean section group. Neonatal facial bruising, temporary facial nerve palsy, and maternal perineal and vaginal lacerations were more common in the forceps groups. This study suggests that rotational forceps may be a reasonable alternative to cesarean delivery in the management of transverse arrest.
Journal Article↗
Disposable versus reusable biopsy forceps in GI endoscopy: a cost-minimization analysis.
BACKGROUND: The use of disposable biopsy forceps seems to be effective and safer than reusable biopsy forceps with respect to the risk of infection transmission. The results of cost analysis studies comparing reusable versus disposable biopsy forceps are conflicting. This study compared the cost of reusable versus disposable biopsy forceps. METHODS: A cost-minimization analysis was carried out from the viewpoint of a hospital. Direct costs were included. The study design was retrospective. For reusable biopsy forceps, the evaluation of costs included purchase prices, cleaning (chemicals, equipment, technician time), and a fee for sterilization in a centralized facility. The cost evaluation for disposable biopsy forceps included acquisition and destruction costs. Costs were expressed in United States dollars. RESULTS: The mean number of uses was approximately 90 per reusable forceps. The cost per use of reusable biopsy forceps was 6.84 US dollars (acquisition 3.59 US dollars, cleaning 2.28 US dollars, centralized sterilization fee 0.97 US dollars). The cost per use of disposable biopsy forceps varied from 10.72 US dollars to 15.63 US dollars. Additional cost per use of disposable biopsy forceps ranged from 3.88 US dollars to 8.79 US dollars. CONCLUSIONS: From a strictly economic point of view, the use of reusable biopsy forceps is advantageous. However, additional factors should be considered. It would be essential to take into account the potential risk of infectious disease transmission related to the use of both types of forceps, which remains uncharacterized.
Biopsy↗
Disposable versus reusable biopsy forceps for colorectal epithelial cell proliferation in humans.
The performance of various measures of rectal mucosal proliferation has been evaluated in the literature, but the performance of the forceps used to obtain the tissue has received little attention. We used data from two large studies of proliferation at a single institution to compare reusable and disposable endoscopic forceps. Endoscopic pinch biopsies were taken 10 cm from the anal verge using either reusable or disposable, oval-cupped, sheathed forceps. The specimens were fixed, embedded, and sectioned, taking care to orient the specimens longitudinally. Five sections were placed on each slide. We determined how many slides did not contain eight scorable crypts (inadequate) and how many sections were necessary to identify eight complete crypts. There were 395 subjects who had biopsies taken with reusable forceps and 185 subjects who had biopsies taken with disposable forceps. The specimens were inadequate in 27.6% of the reusable forceps specimens versus 2.7% of the disposable forceps (P < 0.0001). The mean number of tissue sections necessary to identify eight scorable crypts for the reusable forceps was 3.82 (SD, 0.87) compared with 3.17 (SD, 0.83) for disposable forceps (P = 0.0001). The specimens taken with the disposable forceps were better, probably because the forceps were sharper. We believe that the better quality of the specimens and the sterility justify the higher cost of disposable forceps. We would urge investigators in proliferation studies to evaluate the biopsy equipment as carefully as they evaluate other aspects of their methods.
Biopsy↗
[Disposable versus reusable biopsy forceps. A prospective cost analysis in the gastrointestinal endoscopy unit of the Dijon University Hospital].
AIMS: The goal of this study was to compare the cost of a biopsy session performed with a disposable and a reusable endoscopic biopsy forceps. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Over a 10-month period, 15 new reusable forceps (10 gastric and 5 colonic) were prospectively tracked. A biopsy session performed with a reusable forceps included its current purchase price, the sterilization cost and the number of uses. A biopsy session performed with a disposable forceps was calculated with its current purchase price and its incineration cost. RESULTS: At the end of the study, only one reusable forceps had broken and the number of uses was 65. The cost of a biopsy session performed with a gastric reusable forceps was euro 7.52 (including euro 1.92 of sterilization cost) and euro 8.67 for a reusable colonic forceps (with the same sterilization cost). The cost of a biopsy session performed with a gastric or a colonic disposable forceps was euro 11.98. From 44 uses for a colonic forceps and 37 uses for a gastric one, a biopsy session performed with a reusable forceps was already cheaper. CONCLUSION: In this study, a biopsy session performed with a reusable forceps was less expensive than with a disposable one. However, the extra cost generated by the disposable forceps may be offset by an easier inventory control and the reduction of the cross contamination risk.
Biopsy↗
Comparison of 23 gauge and 25 gauge anterior capsulotomy forceps.
In cataract surgery, the most commonly-used procedure for incision of the anterior capsule is continuous curvilinear capsulorrhexis (CCC), developed by Gimbel and Neuhann. As Gimbel has reported, CCC is a safe technique for phacoemulsification and aspiration (PEA) and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. The optimum incision method for CCC is thought to be that of using anterior capsulotomy forceps. Recently, I have developed the side-port 23 gauge anterior capsulotomy forceps (23G forceps), manufactured by Asico, which can be manipulated via a small incision, as well as the side-port 25 gauge anterior capsulotomy forceps (25G forceps) and 25/23 gauge tapered anterior capsulotomy forceps (tapered forceps), manufactured by Inami, which are thought to provide even better ease of handling. In view of the fact that the visibility, ease of handling, bending, adverse effect on the wound, and effect on the cornea of these various forceps are important, the present comparison study among these forceps was conducted on pig lenses by means of 0.1 % trypan blue staining of the anterior capsule. It was found that capsulorrhexis was difficult with the 25G forceps because of the strong bend of the shaft. However, the tapered forceps has little bend, and like the 23G forceps, it showed outstanding handling and visibility and had little adverse effect on the wound.
Animals↗