Skip to Content

Instrument-room knowledge, written down

Medical Forceps
Home/Ranking Table
Ranking Table

100 Forceps Patterns: An Exploratory Morphology Comparison

Hulka tenaculum rates 1.53/2 for tip taper, versus 0.50/2 for Fergusson lion-jaw.

Priya Raman · Published · 5 Min Read

Key findings

  • Taper distinguishes the patternsHulka tenaculum rates 1.53/2 for tip taper, versus 0.50/2 for Fergusson lion-jaw.
  • Bluntness is a separate featurePayr intestinal pattern rates 1.66/2 for tip bluntness, versus 0.20/2 for Laparoscopic rat-tooth pattern.
  • Jaw texture differs sharplyFergusson lion-jaw rates 1.77/2 for serration prominence, versus 0.32/2 for Babcock laparoscopic.

Compare the ratings

Download complete CSV ↗
Choose individual fields

Initial order: Jaw slenderness, highest first.
1 Chevalier-Jackson Esophageal Foreign-Body Forceps 1.64 1.24 1.25 0.97 1.66 0.91 0.49 0.91 0.94 1.37 0.16 0.3 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.64 on the editorial rating scale.
2 Kevorkian-Younge uterine biopsy forceps 1.62 1.04 1.48 0.65 1.01 0.95 0.72 1.09 0.85 1.49 0.21 0.46 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.62 on the editorial rating scale.
3 Magill intubation forceps 1.62 1.47 1.36 0.72 1.52 0.84 0.23 0.92 0.84 1.13 0.19 0.22 Unknown Curved Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.62 on the editorial rating scale.
4 debakey aortic aneurysm forceps 1.59 1.17 1.47 0.78 1.35 0.89 0.75 0.99 0.9 1.44 0.54 0.49 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.59 on the editorial rating scale.
5 Jackson Alligator Forceps 1.56 1.51 1.52 0.52 0.74 0.9 0.9 1.37 0.94 1.55 0.33 0.39 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.56 on the editorial rating scale.
6 Brüning Bronchial Forceps 1.55 1.29 1.21 0.92 1.32 1.05 0.67 1.1 0.95 1.39 0.36 0.61 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.55 on the editorial rating scale.
7 Kielland Obstetrical Forceps 1.55 1.13 1.03 0.9 1.12 0.8 0.67 0.68 0.88 1.61 0.07 0.33 Unknown Curved Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.55 on the editorial rating scale.
8 lahey gall duct forceps 1.53 1.19 1.23 1.03 1.4 1 0.71 0.89 0.93 1.27 0.42 0.54 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.53 on the editorial rating scale.
9 Wittner uterine biopsy forceps 1.51 0.96 1.36 0.72 0.89 0.95 0.59 1.12 0.87 1.45 0.37 0.59 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.51 on the editorial rating scale.
10 Knight nasal septum forceps 1.5 1.26 1.25 0.93 0.98 0.98 0.7 0.99 0.92 1.44 0.38 0.54 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.50 on the editorial rating scale.
11 Luc nasal forceps 1.5 1.2 1.23 0.88 0.79 0.86 0.48 0.96 0.83 1.22 0.62 0.62 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.50 on the editorial rating scale.
12 Laparoscopic Rat-Tooth Grasping Forceps 1.48 0.8 1.38 0.2 1.63 0.9 0.91 1.49 0.87 1.67 0.49 0.64 Unknown Unknown Morphology Jaw slenderness: 1.48 on the editorial rating scale.
13 Mixter right-angle forceps 1.48 1.74 1.45 0.96 1.1 0.92 0.72 1.03 0.95 1.4 0.27 0.34 Ring handles Angled Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.48 on the editorial rating scale.
14 price-thomas bronchial forceps 1.45 1.2 1.16 0.87 1.16 1.02 0.43 1.09 0.86 1.25 0.42 0.62 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.45 on the editorial rating scale.
15 Jansen-Middleton septum forceps 1.41 1.15 1.25 0.98 0.97 1.06 0.84 1.02 0.93 1.41 0.34 0.57 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.41 on the editorial rating scale.
16 sarot bronchial forceps 1.41 1.27 1.19 0.76 1.15 1.01 0.68 1.12 0.89 1.44 0.47 0.82 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.41 on the editorial rating scale.
17 Smith-Buxton uterine biopsy forceps 1.38 0.94 1.28 0.73 0.86 1.02 0.67 1.11 0.89 1.35 0.23 0.44 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.38 on the editorial rating scale.
18 young renal pedicle forceps 1.32 1.09 1.3 0.98 0.91 1.02 0.86 1.07 0.9 1.42 0.83 0.74 Unknown Unknown General function Jaw slenderness: 1.32 on the editorial rating scale.
19 Asch septum straightening forceps 1.31 0.48 1.15 0.91 0.87 1.07 0.56 0.88 0.85 1.29 0.27 0.4 Unknown Straight Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.31 on the editorial rating scale.
20 hulka uterine tenaculum forceps 1.31 1.06 1.53 0.45 0.99 0.74 0.49 1.14 0.86 1.47 0.43 0.55 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.31 on the editorial rating scale.
21 scudder intestinal forceps 1.31 1.01 1.24 0.99 0.9 0.98 0.56 1.05 0.89 1.32 0.36 0.59 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.31 on the editorial rating scale.
22 crafoord aortic forceps 1.3 1.35 1.17 0.9 1.23 1.02 0.75 1.07 0.97 1.37 0.3 0.51 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.30 on the editorial rating scale.
23 museux vulsellum forceps 1.3 0.8 1.27 0.72 0.75 0.75 0.36 1.05 0.79 1.36 0.72 0.75 Unknown Unknown Unknown Jaw slenderness: 1.30 on the editorial rating scale.
24 Teale vulsellum forceps 1.3 0.9 1.17 0.78 0.83 0.92 0.45 1.11 0.84 1.29 0.28 0.48 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.30 on the editorial rating scale.
25 crafoord-sellors dissecting forceps 1.28 0.97 1.28 0.67 1.05 0.99 0.43 1.07 0.9 1.27 0.3 0.56 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.28 on the editorial rating scale.
26 duval lung grasping forceps 1.28 1.21 1.1 1.04 1.18 1 0.51 1.03 0.94 1.39 0.36 0.49 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.28 on the editorial rating scale.
27 glassman intestinal forceps 1.28 1 1.14 1.15 1.06 0.95 0.5 1.04 0.89 1.25 0.44 0.74 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.28 on the editorial rating scale.
28 collin uterine dressing forceps 1.27 0.96 1.1 1.03 1.05 0.9 0.65 1.03 0.86 1.23 0.49 0.49 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.27 on the editorial rating scale.
29 Semb dissecting forceps 1.27 0.77 1.22 0.77 0.91 0.93 0.44 1.09 0.86 1.14 0.43 0.68 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.27 on the editorial rating scale.
30 phaneuf uterine artery forceps 1.26 1.31 1.13 0.98 1.17 1.02 0.71 1.04 0.93 1.42 0.26 0.68 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.26 on the editorial rating scale.
31 Walsham nasal bone forceps 1.26 1.25 1.25 0.95 0.77 1.01 0.52 1.01 0.94 1.26 0.18 0.33 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.26 on the editorial rating scale.
32 faure uterine artery forceps 1.25 1.21 1.19 0.95 1.05 1.01 0.86 0.98 0.94 1.33 0.32 0.54 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.25 on the editorial rating scale.
33 Sims uterine dressing forceps 1.25 1.2 1.1 1.04 0.91 0.85 0.53 0.94 0.87 1.23 0.37 0.46 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.25 on the editorial rating scale.
34 Potts-Smith dissecting forceps 1.24 0.8 1.23 0.84 0.9 1.11 0.61 1.01 0.93 1.35 0.23 0.31 Ring handles Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.24 on the editorial rating scale.
35 dennis intestinal anastomosis forceps 1.22 1.08 1.15 1.11 1.03 1 0.83 1.11 0.94 1.54 0.35 0.64 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.22 on the editorial rating scale.
36 Kantrowitz thoracic forceps 1.22 1.22 1.05 1.05 1.34 0.99 0.73 1.04 1 1.53 0.21 0.5 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.22 on the editorial rating scale.
37 Maryland Laparoscopic Dissecting Forceps 1.22 0.94 0.87 1.01 1.41 0.76 0.39 1.06 0.86 1.44 0.33 0.37 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.22 on the editorial rating scale.
38 Kelly Laparoscopic Dissecting Forceps 1.21 0.73 0.9 1.04 1.54 0.75 0.67 1.12 0.84 1.33 0.92 0.72 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.21 on the editorial rating scale.
39 DeBakey Laparoscopic Grasping Forceps 1.2 0.74 1.13 0.79 1.54 0.8 0.72 1.04 0.78 1.4 0.76 0.58 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.20 on the editorial rating scale.
40 Naegele Obstetrical Forceps 1.2 1.43 0.97 1.18 1.04 0.94 1.07 1.04 0.97 1.51 0.14 0.38 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.20 on the editorial rating scale.
41 bozeman-douglas uterine dressing forceps 1.19 1.18 1.19 1.06 1.07 1.05 0.71 1.12 0.91 1.34 0.36 0.44 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.19 on the editorial rating scale.
42 Dolphin-Nose Laparoscopic Grasping Forceps 1.19 1.39 1.1 1.16 1.46 0.82 0.57 0.79 0.75 1.41 0.44 0.57 Unknown Unknown Morphology Jaw slenderness: 1.19 on the editorial rating scale.
43 satinsky tangential occlusion forceps 1.19 1.15 1.07 1.05 0.95 1.04 0.81 0.94 0.88 1.39 0.59 0.67 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.19 on the editorial rating scale.
44 Wangensteen dissecting forceps 1.19 0.89 1.25 0.83 1.05 0.97 0.76 1.17 0.9 1.29 0.24 0.28 Ring handles Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.19 on the editorial rating scale.
45 Blake gallstone forceps 1.18 1.09 1.08 1 0.96 0.94 0.52 0.96 0.87 1.38 0.27 0.46 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.18 on the editorial rating scale.
46 desjardins gallstone forceps 1.18 1.22 1.08 1.11 0.97 1.02 0.44 1 0.91 1.37 0.33 0.56 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.18 on the editorial rating scale.
47 Barton Obstetrical Forceps 1.16 1.42 1.06 1.23 0.88 0.99 1.03 0.93 0.97 1.46 0.14 0.44 Unknown Curved Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.16 on the editorial rating scale.
48 Tudor Edwards artery forceps 1.16 0.89 1.21 0.86 0.96 1.12 1.08 1.15 0.95 1.41 0.26 0.43 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.16 on the editorial rating scale.
49 gemini dissecting and ligature forceps 1.13 0.74 1.23 0.77 0.94 1.05 0.7 1.18 0.93 1.41 1.59 1.15 Unknown Unknown General function Jaw slenderness: 1.13 on the editorial rating scale.
50 Johann Laparoscopic Grasping Forceps 1.13 0.88 0.94 0.98 1.51 0.79 0.44 0.96 0.86 1.5 1.7 1.01 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.13 on the editorial rating scale.
51 randall kidney stone forceps 1.13 1.2 1.12 0.95 1.24 1.04 0.62 1.11 0.92 1.51 0.41 0.66 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.13 on the editorial rating scale.
52 bozeman uterine dressing forceps 1.12 1.08 1.23 1.07 1.03 1 0.79 1.18 0.9 1.3 0.42 0.43 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.12 on the editorial rating scale.
53 glover vascular forceps 1.12 0.73 1.21 0.98 0.88 1.12 1.03 1.09 0.92 1.26 0.87 0.51 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.12 on the editorial rating scale.
54 lane stomach forceps 1.12 1.21 1.08 1.08 1.13 1.05 0.91 1.16 0.91 1.26 0.46 0.55 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.12 on the editorial rating scale.
55 moynihan gallbladder forceps 1.1 1.19 1.08 1.06 1.05 1.05 0.68 1.14 0.97 1.33 0.38 0.46 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.10 on the editorial rating scale.
56 sauerbruch lung grasping forceps 1.1 1.45 1.17 0.97 1.34 1.1 0.44 1.16 1.05 1.55 0.29 0.47 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.10 on the editorial rating scale.
57 Roberts artery forceps 1.09 0.93 1.13 0.89 0.95 1.07 1.08 1.26 0.93 1.37 0.32 0.43 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.09 on the editorial rating scale.
58 Overholt dissecting forceps 1.08 0.65 1.2 0.64 0.83 1.01 0.52 1.23 0.95 1.28 0.22 0.31 Ring handles Straight Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.08 on the editorial rating scale.
59 schroeder uterine tenaculum forceps 1.07 1.06 1.25 0.65 0.8 0.78 0.52 1.17 0.84 1.39 0.23 0.34 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.07 on the editorial rating scale.
60 cheron uterine dressing forceps 1.06 1.1 1 1.29 1.03 0.98 0.69 1.05 0.89 1.2 0.93 0.72 Unknown Unknown General function Jaw slenderness: 1.06 on the editorial rating scale.
61 winter ovum forceps 1.06 1.29 0.96 1.31 1.07 1.07 0.81 1.05 0.91 1.31 0.6 0.81 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.06 on the editorial rating scale.
62 cooley aortic forceps 1.05 1.26 1.1 1 1.19 1.09 0.92 1.25 0.98 1.38 0.37 0.48 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.05 on the editorial rating scale.
63 sopher ovum forceps 1.04 1.27 0.86 1.32 0.95 1.04 0.77 0.84 0.93 1.38 0.57 0.83 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.04 on the editorial rating scale.
64 zeppelin hysterectomy forceps 1.04 1.22 0.98 1.24 1.44 1.12 0.95 1.29 1.02 1.49 0.8 0.95 Unknown Unknown Unknown Jaw slenderness: 1.04 on the editorial rating scale.
65 Bryant dressing forceps 1.03 0.9 1.04 1.17 0.86 0.91 0.74 1.11 0.89 1.15 0.41 0.42 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.03 on the editorial rating scale.
66 bierer ovum forceps 1.01 1.24 0.79 1.37 0.95 1 0.65 0.86 0.92 1.32 0.31 0.67 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.01 on the editorial rating scale.
67 doyen intestinal forceps 1.01 1.03 0.9 1.39 1.05 1.03 0.81 1.13 0.91 1.34 0.46 0.43 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.01 on the editorial rating scale.
68 heywood-smith ovum forceps 1.01 1.19 0.89 1.28 0.93 1.02 0.68 0.87 0.9 1.28 0.24 0.53 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.01 on the editorial rating scale.
69 masterson hysterectomy forceps 1.01 1.14 1.03 1.09 1.3 1.21 1.09 1.29 1.02 1.56 0.26 0.41 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.01 on the editorial rating scale.
70 wertheim hysterectomy forceps 1 1.27 1.03 1.03 1.36 1.13 0.97 1.25 1.01 1.56 0.72 0.67 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 1.00 on the editorial rating scale.
71 bonney myomectomy forceps 0.99 1.07 1.05 1.09 1.21 1.13 0.91 1.34 0.96 1.4 0.45 0.57 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.99 on the editorial rating scale.
72 mikulicz peritoneal forceps 0.99 1.12 0.75 1.41 1.21 0.95 0.71 1.29 0.97 1.33 0.43 0.63 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.99 on the editorial rating scale.
73 foerster sponge forceps 0.93 0.74 0.84 1.38 0.89 0.96 0.51 0.85 0.8 1.01 0.48 0.39 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.93 on the editorial rating scale.
74 Tarnier Axis-Traction Forceps 0.92 1.29 0.93 1.28 1.2 0.93 1.06 0.98 1.26 1.86 0.17 0.47 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.92 on the editorial rating scale.
75 McLean-Luikart Obstetrical Forceps 0.91 1.22 0.97 1.22 0.98 1.18 1.12 1.1 1.01 1.57 0.21 0.6 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.91 on the editorial rating scale.
76 Elliot Obstetrical Forceps 0.9 1.13 0.96 1.13 0.96 1.13 1.11 1.1 0.97 1.49 0.23 0.53 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.90 on the editorial rating scale.
77 Milne-Murray Obstetrical Forceps 0.88 1.17 0.96 1.2 1.01 1.17 1.1 1.14 1 1.58 0.23 0.68 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.88 on the editorial rating scale.
78 Neville-Barnes Obstetrical Forceps 0.88 1.17 0.96 1.21 0.96 1.14 1.12 1.12 0.96 1.45 0.15 0.48 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.88 on the editorial rating scale.
79 green-armytage uterine forceps 0.87 1.24 0.95 1.2 1.02 1.16 0.97 1.25 0.99 1.42 0.22 0.43 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.87 on the editorial rating scale.
80 Piper Obstetrical Forceps 0.87 1.2 0.92 1.27 0.98 1.27 1.23 1.06 1 1.47 0.12 0.29 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.87 on the editorial rating scale.
81 Babcock Laparoscopic Grasping Forceps 0.86 1.03 0.53 1.52 1.64 0.81 0.45 0.32 0.71 1.5 0.62 0.62 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.86 on the editorial rating scale.
82 heaney hysterectomy forceps 0.86 1.19 0.97 1.26 1.32 1.23 1.18 1.25 1.04 1.59 0.31 0.38 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.86 on the editorial rating scale.
83 Laufe Obstetrical Forceps 0.86 1.17 0.97 1.22 1.01 1.14 1.1 1.08 0.99 1.43 0.26 0.6 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.86 on the editorial rating scale.
84 DeLee Obstetrical Forceps 0.84 1.24 0.91 1.27 1.02 1.07 1.19 1.06 1.02 1.49 0.22 0.28 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.84 on the editorial rating scale.
85 Giertz-Stille hysterectomy forceps 0.82 1.19 0.98 1.21 1.18 1.14 1.01 1.37 1 1.54 0.36 0.66 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.82 on the editorial rating scale.
86 Tucker-McLane Obstetrical Forceps 0.82 1.23 0.93 1.21 0.97 1.23 1.23 1.16 1.01 1.44 0.16 0.38 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.82 on the editorial rating scale.
87 Hawks-Dennen Obstetrical Forceps 0.8 1.24 0.96 1.18 0.98 1.27 1.15 1.1 1.01 1.48 0.19 0.51 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.80 on the editorial rating scale.
88 Kelly gallbladder forceps 0.79 1.04 0.73 1.31 0.87 1.08 0.73 1.2 0.93 1.27 0.41 0.35 Ring handles Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.79 on the editorial rating scale.
89 mayo-guyon renal pedicle forceps 0.75 1.17 0.88 1.31 1.14 1.13 0.96 1.34 0.96 1.53 0.32 0.44 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.75 on the editorial rating scale.
90 heaney-ballantine hysterectomy forceps 0.74 1.3 0.91 1.34 1.28 1.3 1.24 1.36 1.06 1.64 0.55 0.52 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.74 on the editorial rating scale.
91 Simpson-Luikart Obstetrical Forceps 0.72 1.32 0.86 1.29 1.05 1.24 1.29 1.25 1.04 1.49 0.66 0.62 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.72 on the editorial rating scale.
92 ochsner hysterectomy forceps 0.69 1.09 0.88 1.23 1.09 1.14 1.07 1.39 0.99 1.67 0.53 0.5 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.69 on the editorial rating scale.
93 rampley sponge forceps 0.67 0.88 0.74 1.49 0.8 0.95 0.63 0.86 0.85 1.09 0.62 0.71 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.67 on the editorial rating scale.
94 doyen stomach forceps 0.65 1.12 0.86 1.3 1.04 1.05 1.03 1.29 0.95 1.35 0.39 0.36 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.65 on the editorial rating scale.
95 maier sponge forceps 0.61 0.9 0.71 1.57 0.8 0.95 0.73 1.07 0.82 1.14 0.64 0.6 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.61 on the editorial rating scale.
96 Simpson Obstetrical Forceps 0.6 1.3 0.78 1.35 1.03 1.32 1.32 1.24 1.03 1.46 0.19 0.25 Ring handles Curved Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.60 on the editorial rating scale.
97 payr intestinal crushing forceps 0.53 1.13 0.61 1.66 0.95 1.18 1 1.63 1.02 1.51 0.3 0.51 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.53 on the editorial rating scale.
98 Rochester-Carmalt forceps 0.51 0.62 0.76 1.17 0.75 1.1 1.36 1.51 0.97 1.53 0.39 0.33 Ring handles Straight Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.51 on the editorial rating scale.
99 kocher intestinal forceps 0.45 0.72 0.71 1.17 0.89 1.07 1.05 1.62 0.95 1.33 0.66 0.47 Unknown Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.45 on the editorial rating scale.
100 Fergusson lion-jaw bone-holding forceps 0.26 1.26 0.5 1.3 0.76 1.08 0.76 1.77 1.18 1.77 0.24 0.39 Ring handles Unknown Eponym Jaw slenderness: 0.26 on the editorial rating scale.
100 rows · all fields visible
Data completeness: 3 categorical field(s) contain unknowns

Handle morphology: 92 of 100 entries unresolved. Unknown values are excluded from group comparisons.

Jaw-axis morphology: 92 of 100 entries unresolved. Unknown values are excluded from group comparisons.

Naming basis: 2 of 100 entries unresolved. Unknown values are excluded from group comparisons.

100rows in the dataset
18fields per row
1.13median Jaw slenderness
0.37middle-half spread

Where the ratings cluster

Jaw slenderness · 0–2 rating · 100 finite values

0.261.64

8 equal-width bin(s) across the observed range; the final bin includes the maximum. Middle 50%: 0.91–1.28. Hover a bin for its range.

First five by Jaw slenderness

  1. 1Chevalier-Jackson Esophageal Foreign-Body Forceps1.64
  2. 2Kevorkian-Younge uterine biopsy forceps1.62
  3. 3Magill intubation forceps1.62
  4. 4debakey aortic aneurysm forceps1.59
  5. 5Jackson Alligator Forceps1.56

Tied scores retain source order; listing first does not break a tie. Read across each row before choosing a shortlist.

Distribution across numeric fields

Quartiles describe the middle half of each field. Units differ; compare values within a row of this summary, not across unrelated fields.

FieldValid nMinimum25th pct.Median75th pct.Maximum
Jaw slenderness (0–2 rating)1000.260.911.131.281.64
Jaw curvature (0–2 rating)1000.480.971.171.241.74
Tip taper (0–2 rating)1000.50.931.081.211.53
Tip bluntness (0–2 rating)1000.20.911.051.231.66
Shaft elongation (0–2 rating)1000.740.931.031.181.66
Ring-handle prominence (0–2 rating)1000.740.951.021.11.32
Ratchet prominence (0–2 rating)1000.230.580.7311.36
Jaw-serration prominence (0–2 rating)1000.321.021.11.181.77
Joint prominence (0–2 rating)1000.710.880.930.971.26
Geometric complexity (0–2 rating)1001.011.321.41.491.86
Pattern-name ambiguity (0–2 rating)1000.070.240.360.471.7
Catalog variability (0–2 rating)1000.220.430.510.621.15
Field definitions and analysis method
rank
Position after sorting the ranking field; ties are not evidence of a real difference.
Entry
Identity of this comparison entry.
Jaw slenderness
0: Broad thick jaw form; 1: Moderately narrow jaw form; 2: Very narrow elongated jaw form
Jaw curvature
0: Straight jaw axis; 1: Gently curved jaw axis; 2: Strongly curved or angled jaw axis
Tip taper
0: Jaw maintains broad width near its end; 1: Moderate narrowing toward the end; 2: Pronounced narrowing toward a fine tip
Tip bluntness
0: Fine sharply defined tip outline; 1: Rounded but relatively narrow tip outline; 2: Broad blunt terminal outline
Shaft elongation
0: Short shaft relative to handle; 1: Shaft and handle of comparable prominence; 2: Long shaft dominates overall proportions
Ring-handle prominence
0: No distinct finger rings; 1: Small or understated finger rings; 2: Large clearly defining finger-ring geometry
Ratchet prominence
0: No visible ratchet mechanism in pattern identity; 1: Small locking-ratchet element; 2: Conspicuous multi-position locking-ratchet geometry
Jaw-serration prominence
0: Smooth jaw pattern identity; 1: Fine subtle serration pattern; 2: Coarse visually defining serration pattern
Joint prominence
0: Minimal joint geometry in silhouette; 1: Distinct conventional joint; 2: Large or elaborate joint dominates the silhouette
Geometric complexity
0: Simple continuous silhouette; 1: Several changing widths or angles; 2: Multiple articulated or strongly changing geometric regions
Pattern-name ambiguity
0: Name refers to a specific distinguishable pattern; 1: Name covers several closely related variants; 2: Name is generic or spans substantially different forms
Catalog variability
0: Pattern identity suggests a stable recognizable silhouette; 1: Several common outline variants; 2: Large variation between catalog interpretations
Handle morphology
Ring handles: Two finger-ring handles define the pattern; Spring arms: Opposing spring arms define the pattern; Other form: A distinct non-ring non-spring handle pattern; Unknown: Identity or classification is uncertain, or no listed category fits
Jaw-axis morphology
Straight: Predominantly straight jaw axis; Curved: Continuously curved jaw axis; Angled: Abrupt angular offset defines jaw axis; Unknown: Identity or classification is uncertain, or no listed category fits
Naming basis
Eponym: Pattern name primarily references a person; Morphology: Pattern name primarily describes shape; General function: Pattern name primarily names a broad instrument function; Unknown: Identity or classification is uncertain, or no listed category fits
rationale
Explanation of the row’s ratings under the stated criteria.

Statistics are computed from the published finite values. Quantiles use linear interpolation at (n − 1) × p. Associations can reflect shared assessment assumptions; no statistical significance or real-world causal effect is implied. The article explains the assessment method and limitations.

Hulka tenaculum rates 1.53/2 for tip taper, versus 0.50/2 for Fergusson lion-jaw. Payr intestinal pattern rates 1.66/2 for tip bluntness, versus 0.20/2 for Laparoscopic rat-tooth pattern. Fergusson lion-jaw rates 1.77/2 for serration prominence, versus 0.32/2 for Babcock laparoscopic.

Jaw slenderness and tip taper have a tie-aware Spearman rank correlation of 0.84. On our 0–2 rating scales, Chevalier-Jackson Esophageal Foreign-Body Forceps receives 1.64 for jaw slenderness and 1.25 for tip taper; Fergusson lion-jaw bone-holding forceps receives 0.26 and 0.50, respectively.

Jaw slenderness and tip taper have a strong positive rank association in our ratings. Narrow jaws generally sit alongside stronger taper ratings, so those two columns overlap rather than providing wholly separate distinctions. Curvature, handle form and serration describe other aspects that should be inspected on their own terms. The naming result is particularly instructive: recognizing an eponym does not establish what its handle or jaw looks like. Start with a specific catalog image and description when an identity matters. The table can supply a checklist of features to compare, but its ordinal scores do not supply dimensions, material specifications, sterilization instructions or clinical suitability.

The list contains 93/100 names categorized as eponyms, while handle morphology is Unknown for 92/100. A familiar-looking pattern name provides less identifying detail than a complete catalog entry. Treat unresolved handles as missing information rather than interpreting decimal scores as a precise instrument description.

Handle morphology is unresolved for 92/100 entries, leaving 8 rows for named-group comparisons. The primary rating has an exact tie spanning 4 entries; rounding to one decimal puts as many as 17 together. Read nearby positions as broad clusters rather than distinct tiers.

What the ratings show

The analysis covers 100 rows and 18 fields.

The spread in Jaw slenderness

Across 100 usable values, Jaw slenderness runs from 0.26 to 1.64 on the 0–2 rating scale. The median is 1.13; the middle half of rows falls between 0.91 and 1.28. That middle-half range is 0.37, compared with a full range of 1.38. There are 0 missing or non-finite values in this field.

The rank is a sorting aid, not a confidence statement. Small gaps between subjective ratings do not establish meaningful differences. Use the full row and its assumptions when making a shortlist.

Which fields move together

  • Tip taper and Jaw slenderness: Spearman rho = 0.84 across 100 complete pairs. Higher values tend to accompany higher Jaw slenderness values within these rows.
  • Tip bluntness and Jaw slenderness: Spearman rho = -0.79 across 100 complete pairs. Lower values tend to accompany higher Jaw slenderness values within these rows.
  • Ring-handle prominence and Jaw slenderness: Spearman rho = -0.60 across 100 complete pairs. Lower values tend to accompany higher Jaw slenderness values within these rows.
  • Ratchet prominence and Jaw slenderness: Spearman rho = -0.58 across 100 complete pairs. Lower values tend to accompany higher Jaw slenderness values within these rows.

These are descriptive associations, not causal findings. They can reflect the assessment’s shared assumptions, linked scoring rubrics or repeated scenario structure. Correlated ratings are not independent confirmation of one another.

How the shortlist changes with a constraint

The following comparisons retain the published Jaw slenderness ordering but split the dataset at each secondary field’s median. Choose the side that matches your use case; neither side is assumed to be better.

  • With Tip taper at or below 1.08, 52 rows qualify. Kielland Obstetrical Forceps is the first listed of 1 row(s) tied at that subset’s highest value of 1.55 for Jaw slenderness; its Tip taper is 1.03.
  • With Tip taper above 1.08, 48 rows qualify. Chevalier-Jackson Esophageal Foreign-Body Forceps is the first listed of 1 row(s) tied at that subset’s highest value of 1.64 for Jaw slenderness; its Tip taper is 1.25.
  • With Tip bluntness at or below 1.05, 51 rows qualify. Chevalier-Jackson Esophageal Foreign-Body Forceps is the first listed of 1 row(s) tied at that subset’s highest value of 1.64 for Jaw slenderness; its Tip bluntness is 0.97.
  • With Tip bluntness above 1.05, 49 rows qualify. glassman intestinal forceps is the first listed of 1 row(s) tied at that subset’s highest value of 1.28 for Jaw slenderness; its Tip bluntness is 1.15.
  • With Ring-handle prominence at or below 1.02, 55 rows qualify. Chevalier-Jackson Esophageal Foreign-Body Forceps is the first listed of 1 row(s) tied at that subset’s highest value of 1.64 for Jaw slenderness; its Ring-handle prominence is 0.91.
  • With Ring-handle prominence above 1.02, 45 rows qualify. Brüning Bronchial Forceps is the first listed of 1 row(s) tied at that subset’s highest value of 1.55 for Jaw slenderness; its Ring-handle prominence is 1.05.

Reproducing the analysis

Download the complete CSV, retain finite numeric values, and sort the ranking field in the descending direction. Quantiles use linear interpolation at (n − 1) × p; group statistics use the same method. Spearman correlations use average ranks for ties and use only complete numeric pairs. No significance tests or confidence intervals are reported: these assessments are not a random sample of measured outcomes.

How we compared the entries

We use AI-assisted scoring against the criteria shown for each column. These ratings are subjective editorial assessments, not physical tests or measurements. The assessments use candidate names and descriptions; no independent product testing or field research was performed.

Catalog scope: model-suggested identities from the original cohort; not independently verified.

Educational pattern comparison only. No dimensions, sterilization, procurement, or clinical-use recommendations are inferred.

Scores follow the ordered criteria shown in the table; decimals indicate positions between those anchors, not measurement precision. Associations describe patterns in these assessments and do not establish cause. Category labels and candidate identities can contain errors.

About the Author

Priya spent nine years as a surgical technologist and can identify a hemostat by the sound it makes closing.

Explore the Guide Library ↗