ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Impact of laser enucleation equipment on irrigant flow rate: an in vitro study.
Article in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFluid irrigation is critical for adequate visualization during transurethral endoscopic surgery. There is a paucity of data comparing irrigation by resectoscope, working tools, or fluid system. This study aims to measure flow rate through four different resectoscopes with varying working channel configurations and irrigation systems to compare different configurations of clinical equipment used during laser endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (LEEP). MATERIALS/
methodsWe measured irrigation flow rates through four different sized resectoscopes with three different working channel configurations using five different irrigation systems in a benchtop model. Irrigation was run through each equipment configuration for 30 s in duplicate, and flow rate was calculated.
resultsOne hundred measurements were performed in 50 different equipment configurations. From fastest to slowest, resectoscope flow rates were as follows: 28Fr Storz, 26Fr Storz, 26Fr Wolf, and 24.5Fr Wolf (p < 0.0001) with no statistically significant difference seen among the three working channel configurations. From fastest to slowest, irrigation system flow rates were as follows: 150 cm Y-tubing, 150 cm Level-1, 100 cm Y-tubing, 100 cm Level-1, and Thermedx 60 mm Hg (p < 0.0001). Comparing irrigation systems, within group standard deviations were low except in the 100 cm and 150 cm Level-1 systems (SD 53.7 and 56.6mL/min respectively).
conclusionResectoscope irrigation followed the principles of fluid dynamics, with larger caliber scopes providing greater flow independently of working equipment selections. Despite the inconsistencies seen with the Level-1, higher pressure irrigation resulted in faster flow across all equipment configurations. Future studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to understand if these findings are reproducible and clinically impactful.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40323486What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.