Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39559434›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

An Audit on the Safety and Efficiency of Irrigation Fluid Disposal in Urology: Time to Implement Closed Waste Management Systems?

Dhruv Patel, Kayzia Bertman, Jonathan Ord

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Dhruv PatelUrology, Cheltenham General Hospital, Cheltenham, GBR.
Kayzia BertmanSurgery, Cheltenham General Hospital, Cheltenham, GBR.
Jonathan OrdUrology, Cheltenham General Hospital, Cheltenham, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Efficient and safe disposal of irrigation fluid is critical in urological procedures due to high fluid volumes and exposure risks. This audit examines disposal practices using bucket and suction canister systems in a high-volume urology department in the UK and compares the findings with the potential implementation of an automated irrigation waste management system such as the Neptune® 3 (Stryker Corporation, Kalamazoo, Michigan). A retrospective audit of 224 procedures at Cheltenham General Hospital evaluated fluid disposal impacts on staff safety, operating room efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. We found that procedures using high volumes of irrigants, such as transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), are associated with increased risks, including fluid spills, staff exposure to biohazards, and significant use of single-use plastics, resulting in elevated operational costs and frequent procedural interruptions. The Neptune® system proposes significant advantages, such as reducing fluid handling time, staff exposure, and plastic waste. Cost analysis suggests that initial investments in Neptune® would be offset by reduced consumable usage and increased efficiency. These findings support the implementation of closed fluid management systems to improve safety, efficiency, and environmental sustainability in endoscopic urology.

Indexed as

closed irrigationendo urologysurgical nursingtheatre efficiencywaste management

Identifiers

PMID39559434
PMCPMC11573424

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.