Flechner S M, Williams R D
J Urol. 1982 Feb;127(2):257-9. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)53732-5.
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.
据称，在失血、切除时间和切除率以及灌洗液吸收方面，连续流动式电切镜优于传统电切镜。通过一项对36例患者经尿道前列腺切除术结果的研究来检验这些所谓的优势，这些患者被随机分为两组：1）20例患者使用连续流动式电切镜进行手术；2）16例患者使用传统电切镜进行手术。两组之间在失血、切除率或灌洗液吸收方面未发现统计学上的显著差异。我们得出结论，外科医生的偏好仍然是器械选择中最重要的决定因素。
