Go with the flow: An experimental analysis with tubing alternative with irrigation

Abstract

AbstractBackground and AimsLiterature regarding alternative tubing for fluid delivery in irrigation and debridement procedures is lacking. The purpose of this study was to compare three different apparatuses with varying quantities of irrigation fluid to assess efficiency of administration and evaluate overall time for fluid administration.MethodsThis model was designed to compare available methods of gravity irrigation used in practice. Fluid flow time was measured for three types of tubing: single‐lumen cystoscopy tubing, Y‐type double‐lumen cystoscopy tubing, and nonconductive suction tubing. Irrigation times were assessed for varying volumes of 3, 6, and 9 L to investigate the relationship between bag changes and irrigation time. Bag changes were not conducted for the 3 L trial, but were for 6 and 9 L trials. Dimensions of cystoscopy tubing consisted of 4.95 mm internal diameter and 2.1 m length in both single‐lumen and Y‐type double‐lumen apparatus. Nonconduction suction tubing dimensions were 6.0 mm internal diameter and standard 3.7 m in length.ResultsThe mean flow time for suction tubing was significantly faster than the cystoscopy tubing for the 3 and 9 L trials (p < 0.001). At 6 L, flow time for the suction tubing and the double lumen cystoscopy tubing were similar, 264 versus 260 s, respectively. At 9 L, the mean flow time for the suction tubing was 80 s faster (410 vs. 491 s) compared with single‐lumen cystoscopy and was nearly 30 s faster compared with Y‐type cystoscopy tubing.ConclusionThe results of this study provide insight into a faster, widely available, and cost‐efficient alternative to commonly used cystoscopy tubing.