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

Background and Aims Literature 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 ove...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Health science reports 2023-06, Vol.6 (6), p.e1299-n/a
Main Authors: Hyland, Scott S., DeGenova, Daniel T., Scheschuk, Joseph P., Taylor, Benjamin C.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Antibiotics
Debridement
flow
Flow velocity
fluid
Irrigation
Lavage
Open fractures
Original Research
Standard deviation
Suctioning
Surgeons
Trauma
tubing
Variables
Variance analysis
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background and Aims Literature 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. Methods This 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. Results The mean flow time for suction tubing was significantly faster than the cystoscopy tubing for the 3 and 9 L trials (p 
ISSN:2398-8835
2398-8835
DOI:10.1002/hsr2.1299