©2009 The WJG Press and Baishideng.
World J Gastroenterol. Jan 7, 2009; 15(1): 55-60
Published online Jan 7, 2009. doi: 10.3748/wjg.15.55
Published online Jan 7, 2009. doi: 10.3748/wjg.15.55
Table 1 Differences between the three short-wire systems
| Characteristics | RX system | Fusion system | V-system |
| Type of endoscope | Standard | Standard | V-scope |
| Type of lock | External at the biopsy port | External at the biopsy port | Internal lock design |
| Type of device | Open channel tear-away | Close channel breakthrough | Close lumen device |
| Short–track technology | Yes | Yes | No |
| Wire length | 260 cm | 185 cm | 270 cm |
| Can be used with standard guidewires | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Can be used with 0.025” or 0.018” or angled wires | No | Yes | Yes |
| Can be used with hydrophilic Glidewire | No | Yes | Yes |
| Ability to flush wire channel | No | Yes | Yes |
| Intraductal exchange ability | No | Yes | No |
| Insertion of multiple stents without the need to recannulate | No | Yes | No |
| Physician control of wire | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Pushability of short-wire devices1 | ++ | +++ | +++ |
- Citation: Reddy SC, Draganov PV. ERCP wire systems: The long and the short of it. World J Gastroenterol 2009; 15(1): 55-60
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v15/i1/55.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.15.55