Continuous flow and conventional resectoscope methods in transurethral prostatectomy: comparative study.
The continuous flow resectoscope is claimed to be superior to the conventional resectoscope with respect to blood loss, resection time and rate, and irrigant absorption. These purported advantages were tested by a study of the results of transurethral resection of the prostate in 36 patients assigned randomly to 2 groups: 1) 20 patients operated on with the continuous flow resectoscope and 2) 16 operated on with the conventional resectoscope. No statistically significant differences for blood loss, resection rate or irrigant absorption were found between the 2 groups. We concluded that the preference of the surgeon continues to be the most important determinant in instrument choice.
D001835:Body Weight; D006470:Hemorrhage / Q000517:prevention & control; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011468:Prostatectomy / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D011897:Random Allocation; D013525:Surgical Instruments; D007507:Therapeutic Irrigation