1994
DOI: 10.1016/0090-4295(94)90074-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Continuous versus intermittent flow irrigation in transurethral resection of the prostate

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

5
21
0

Year Published

1996
1996
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
5
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The intravesical pressures recorded in the present study are similar to those encountered with the intermit tent-filling technique [1] and reported for suprapubic drainage without a trocar by us [6] and by Holmqvist et al [7], Thus, one cannot assume that the intravesical pres sure is low just because suprapubic drainage is performed with a trocar. Furthermore, the period of high pressure was twice as long as when the bladder was filled intermit tently [1].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 72%
“…The intravesical pressures recorded in the present study are similar to those encountered with the intermit tent-filling technique [1] and reported for suprapubic drainage without a trocar by us [6] and by Holmqvist et al [7], Thus, one cannot assume that the intravesical pres sure is low just because suprapubic drainage is performed with a trocar. Furthermore, the period of high pressure was twice as long as when the bladder was filled intermit tently [1].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 72%
“…In our opinion the use of a continuous flow resectoscope may explain the absence of any significant absorption: the procedure is performed entirely at low pressure, therefore there is less likelihood of breaching the prostatic capsule and forcing the irrigant to enter the systemic circulation through the opened venous sinuses; furthermore, there is no need to empty the bladder periodically, thus avoiding bladder overdistension and shortening the time of resection. Regarding the principle that lowpressure irrigation decreases fluid absorption, some studies [22][23][24][25] support this view while other authors [26,27] have not found such a reduction. Obviously, a continuous flow irrigation technique does not eliminate the risk of outflow obstruction and low fluid pressure is never guaranteed throughout the intervention.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…Hanging the irrigation fl uid at a height not exceeding 60 cm in order to prevent high pressure in the prostatic fossa, which will have an increasing effect on absorption, and overdistention in the bladder, and also continuous fl ow resectoscopy that ensures low pressure with continuous fl ow are recommended [11,12] . In our study, irrigation fl uid was hung at a height of 60 cm in all the patients, and continuous fl ow resectoscopy was used.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%