Prospective clinical evaluation of the Polyperf® Safe, a safety Huber needle, in cancer patients
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 6, 2026
Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Using a Cone-shaped Double-hole Method with Dual-plane Probe Guidance
Published on: June 6, 2025
Godelieve A Goossens1, Philip Moons, Martine Jérôme
1Department of Surgical Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. godelieve.goossens@uzleuven.be
Purpose:
Evaluation of the Polyperf® Safe (PPS) needle on safety and user-friendliness, as experienced by first-time and non-first-time users of the device.
Methods:
A prospective, descriptive study was carried out at the University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium. Five hundred PPS needles were individually evaluated in cancer patients. Different aspects of the PPS were assessed: packaging, needle insertion, and needle removal. Nurses were asked whether they had previously inserted or removed this type of needle. We compared the PPS needle with the standard Gripper® needle in terms of safety, ease of use, and ease of training.
Results:
Three hundred sixty-six evaluation forms were available for analysis (73.2%). Packaging and access evaluations were scored positively, except for two aspects: (1) needle stability, and (2) ease of dressing. Ease of removal was scored unsatisfactory in up to 22.4% of the registrations. Pain at insertion was reported in about 20% registrations, and blood contact was reported by 2.5% of non-first-time users. Safety was scored as good, although ease of use and ease in training scored 25.4% and 43.8%, respectively, lower than the Gripper®.
Conclusions:
In general, nurses evaluated the PPS positively, with the exception of needle stability, ease of dressing, and ease of removal. No needlestick accidents were recorded. Aspects of ease of use and ease of training for PPS needles scored less than those for the Gripper® needles in up to one-third of the registrations.
