Engineer comparing manufacturing methods for medical device production

Engineering7 min readJune 1, 2026

Peelable Heat Shrink vs. Skiving: An Engineering Comparison

A direct engineering comparison of skiving vs peelable heat shrink tubing across process control, device risk, operator factors, and scalability for catheter manufacturers.

The Engineering Challenge

Heat shrink tubing in catheter manufacturing is a process aid — it's not part of the final device. Its job is to apply precise radial compression during the reflow step. After that, it has to come off cleanly without affecting what's underneath.

"Underneath" may be:

A PEBAX or nylon jacket over a braided shaft

A thin FEP liner over nitinol

A hydrophilic coating

A platinum marker band at a precise axial location

A balloon bond at the distal tip

Method 1: Skiving

A technician uses a sharp blade (typically a custom skiving tool, scalpel, or modified razor) to cut through the wall of the shrunk tubing along its length, then peels back the cut material.

Process Variables:

Blade sharpness (degrades with use)

Cut depth control (operator-dependent)

Tubing wall thickness variation

Operator technique (grip angle, pressure, speed)

Risk Profile:

Surface Gouges: Blade penetrates too deep and marks the jacket. Often not visible until pressure or burst testing.

Liner Damage: In thin-wall constructions, a blade 0.05 mm too deep contacts the PTFE liner — creating a stress riser affecting long-term fatigue life.

Marker Band Displacement: Lateral force during skiving can move a platinum marker band — typically caught at X-ray, but the build is lost.

Braid Cut: In braided constructions without a liner barrier, a deep cut severs braid wires — directly compromising burst strength.

Peeling Junkosha ITP-01 heat shrink tubing from catheter — hand peel, zero blade contact

Peelable HST: zero blade contact, zero device damage. Compare to skiving where the blade runs adjacent to the catheter shaft.

Method 2: Peelable Heat Shrink Tubing (ITP-01)

Peel away tubes shrink and bond identically to standard FEP heat shrink during reflow. After the oven step, the operator makes a single 10 mm slit at the proximal end, initiates the peel, and strips the tube away in one smooth motion.

Equivalent processing performance to standard FEP

Zero cut depth variable — no blade contact with device

Single process variable: initiation slit position

Failure mode: ~0.1% tubing tear (no device damage)

EtO & steam sterilizable, meets USP Class VI

Direct Comparison Table

Factor	Skiving	Peelable HST
Removal time/unit	30–90 sec	5–10 sec
Blade contact with device	Yes — critical	No
Depth control required	Yes — critical	Not applicable
Operator skill dependency	High	Low
Device damage risk	Moderate–High	Near zero
Scrap mechanism	Gouge, cut, displacement	Tear (no device damage)
Late-stage defect risk	High	Negligible
Scale-up complexity	High	Low
Blade/sharps management	Required	Not required
Processing performance vs FEP	Identical	Identical
Material cost per meter	Lower	Slightly higher
Net cost per build	Higher (labor + scrap)	Lower

Switching from Skiving to Peelable HST

Process changeover is straightforward. No oven qualification, no fixture changes, no qualification for the catheter construction itself — only the removal step changes.

1Request samples of ITP-01 in your required sizes (free from Koto Electronics)

2Run parallel builds: same oven parameters, same assembly process — only removal step changes

3Validate that recovered dimensions and bond strength meet your design spec

4Update removal procedure in manufacturing work instructions — remove the blade

Ready to Validate?

ITP-01 samples are available at no cost. Test on your actual build before updating your BOM.

Request Free Samples

Junkosha ITP-01 Peelable Heat Shrink Tubing product lineup