Observational studyBMC anesthesiology2026
Comparison of the endoscopic surgical monitoring system and blood parameters for evaluating irrigation fluid absorption during bipolar plasmakinetic transurethral resection of the prostate: a prospective observational study.
Observational study in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reply to correspondence on perioperative monitoring during thulium laser prostate enucleation.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Interpreting lung ultrasound after thulium laser prostate enucleation: pulmonary response is not irrigation fluid absorption.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Feasibility of serial perioperative lung ultrasound to monitor fluid shifts during thulium laser prostate enucleation.World journal of urology · 2026Observational
- Monitoring Intrarenal Pressure vs. Irrigation Fluid Absorption for Infection Prevention in Ureteroscopy.Advances in urology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIrrigation fluid absorption is an unpredictable complication during transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). This prospective study aimed to compare the Endoscopic Surgical Monitoring System (ESMS) and blood parameters for evaluating fluid absorption volume in patients undergoing bipolar plasmakinetic TURP.
methodsBipolar TURP was performed using 0.9% saline for bladder irrigation. The ESMS measured fluid absorption volumes in real time. In addition, arterial blood samples were collected for blood gas analysis immediately before irrigation and after surgery, with the absorption volume calculated using equations based on changes in plasma sodium, chloride, potassium, calcium, and hemoglobin concentrations.
resultsA total of 420 patients (mean age 69.8 ± 7.7 years) were included. All calculated volumes based on blood parameters were higher than the ESMS-measured volume. The volume calculated from plasma chloride concentration changes showed the closest agreement with the ESMS volume (867.5 ± 748.9 vs. 843.3 ± 722.1 mL, P = 0.416), with a mean bias of 14.4 mL and 95% agreement limits of -385.7 to 414.5 mL. Regression analysis demonstrated a strong linear relationship between plasma chloride elevation and actual absorption volumes (R²=0.776, P = 0.001). However, further analysis revealed a mean percentage bias of + 19%, indicating a systematic overestimation tendency in blood chloride method. Furthermore, a clinically significant discrepancy (> 300 mL) between the blood chloride method and ESMS was associated with altered clinical management, including increased diuretic use (36.7% vs. 15.0%, P < 0.001) and limitation of intravenous fluids (33.3% vs. 17.5%, P = 0.004).
conclusionsAmong the blood parameters, plasma chloride provides the most accurate estimation of irrigation fluid absorption and can serve as a practical hematologic indicator when ESMS is unavailable. However, clinicians should be aware of its inherent overestimation tendency and the potential for clinically significant discrepancies to impact patient management.
trial registrationThis study was prospectively registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on December 25, 2023 ( www.chictr.org.cn ; Registration Number: ChiCTR2300079095).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.