Related Experiment Videos
Comparison between continuous flow and intermittent flow transurethral resection in 40 patients presenting with acute
British Journal of Urology
|December 1, 1980
Summary
Transurethral resection of the prostate using continuous or intermittent flow resectoscopes showed no significant differences in speed, blood loss, or glycine absorption. Some patients experienced hemodilution during surgery.
Area of Science:
- Urology
- Surgical Technology
Background:
- Acute retention of urine necessitates prostatic intervention.
- Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is a common treatment.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare continuous versus intermittent flow resectoscopes for TURP.
- To evaluate procedural efficiency and patient safety.
Main Methods:
- Forty patients with acute retention of urine underwent TURP.
- Procedures utilized either continuous or intermittent flow resectoscopes.
- Key metrics included resection speed, blood loss, and glycine absorption.
Main Results:
- No significant differences were observed between continuous and intermittent flow techniques.
- Resection speed, blood loss, and glycine absorption showed no discernible trends.
- Significant hemodilution was noted in a subset of patients.
Conclusions:
- Both continuous and intermittent flow resectoscopes are comparable for TURP.
- Surgeons should be aware of potential hemodilution during the procedure.