Abstract
Four hundred patients undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate have been studied. An intermittent irrigation resectoscope was used in 200, and a continuous irrigation resectoscope in the remainder. The merits and demerits of continuous irrigation resection are discussed in the light of the results of these operations. The conclusion reached is that the continuous irrigation resectoscope has considerable advantages over the intermittent flow instrument. These advantages are most evident in the difficult operation, or in operations on the larger prostate, as well as in the tuition and demonstration of endoscopic surgery.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Iglesias J. J., Sporer A., Gellman A. C., Seebode J. J. New Iglesias resectoscope with continuous irrigation, simultaneous suction and low intravesical pressure. J Urol. 1975 Dec;114(6):929–933. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)67177-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Madsen P. O., Naber K. G. The importance of the pressure in the prostatic fossa and absorption of irrigating fluid during transurethral resection of the prostate. J Urol. 1973 Mar;109(3):446–452. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)60449-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Notley R. G., Schweitzer F. A. Do we overtreat patients undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate? J R Soc Med. 1978 Jun;71(6):426–429. doi: 10.1177/014107687807100607. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Stephenson T. P., Latto P., Bradley D., Hayward M., Jones A. Comparison between continuous flow and intermittent flow transurethral resection in 40 patients presenting with acute retention. Br J Urol. 1980 Dec;52(6):523–525. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1980.tb03105.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]