Urethral Catheterization Is Not Necessary During Nononcological Laparoscopic Pelvic Surgery.

E. Nevins, Elizabeth G Nevins, P. Moori, C. Strong, Samim Al-Zubaidi, J. Wayman, D. Karat
{"title":"Urethral Catheterization Is Not Necessary During Nononcological Laparoscopic Pelvic Surgery.","authors":"E. Nevins, Elizabeth G Nevins, P. Moori, C. Strong, Samim Al-Zubaidi, J. Wayman, D. Karat","doi":"10.1097/PTS.0000000000000612","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVES\nExpert opinion remains divided regarding whether routine urethral catheterization is required before nononcological laparoscopic pelvic surgery. Catheterization is thought to reduce the incidence of bladder injury when inserting a suprapubic laparoscopic port and prevent obstruction of the view of the pelvis because of bladder filling. However, catheterization comes with a risk of nosocomial infection and harbors financial cost. Moreover, indwelling catheters inhibit early mobilization and increase postoperative discomfort.\n\n\nMETHODS\nA systematic review was undertaken using the Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies guidelines to identify eligible publications. End points included bladder injury, positive postoperative urinary microbiology, and postoperative urinary symptoms.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe reported incidence rates of laparoscopic bladder injury in included publications ranges from 0% to 1.3%. Importantly, bladder injury has occurred during both catheterized and noncatheterized operations. Our meta-analysis also shows that patients who are catheterized have a 2.33 times relative risk of developing postoperative positive microbiology in their urine (P = 0.01) and a 2.41 times relative risk of postoperative urinary symptoms (P = 0.005), when compared with noncatheterized patients.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nThis meta-analysis indicates that omitting a catheter in emergency and elective nononcological laparoscopic pelvic surgery may be a safe option. Catheterization does not remove the risk of bladder injury but results in more urinary tract infections and symptoms. It may be reasonable to ask a patient to void immediately before anesthesia, after which an on-table bladder scan should be performed. If there is minimal residual volume, a urinary catheter may not be necessary, unless operative time is estimated to be greater than 90 minutes.","PeriodicalId":206245,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Patient Safety","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Patient Safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000000612","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

OBJECTIVES Expert opinion remains divided regarding whether routine urethral catheterization is required before nononcological laparoscopic pelvic surgery. Catheterization is thought to reduce the incidence of bladder injury when inserting a suprapubic laparoscopic port and prevent obstruction of the view of the pelvis because of bladder filling. However, catheterization comes with a risk of nosocomial infection and harbors financial cost. Moreover, indwelling catheters inhibit early mobilization and increase postoperative discomfort. METHODS A systematic review was undertaken using the Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies guidelines to identify eligible publications. End points included bladder injury, positive postoperative urinary microbiology, and postoperative urinary symptoms. RESULTS The reported incidence rates of laparoscopic bladder injury in included publications ranges from 0% to 1.3%. Importantly, bladder injury has occurred during both catheterized and noncatheterized operations. Our meta-analysis also shows that patients who are catheterized have a 2.33 times relative risk of developing postoperative positive microbiology in their urine (P = 0.01) and a 2.41 times relative risk of postoperative urinary symptoms (P = 0.005), when compared with noncatheterized patients. CONCLUSIONS This meta-analysis indicates that omitting a catheter in emergency and elective nononcological laparoscopic pelvic surgery may be a safe option. Catheterization does not remove the risk of bladder injury but results in more urinary tract infections and symptoms. It may be reasonable to ask a patient to void immediately before anesthesia, after which an on-table bladder scan should be performed. If there is minimal residual volume, a urinary catheter may not be necessary, unless operative time is estimated to be greater than 90 minutes.
非肿瘤性腹腔镜盆腔手术不需要导尿。
目的:对于非肿瘤性腹腔镜盆腔手术前是否需要常规导尿,专家意见仍存在分歧。导尿被认为可以减少耻骨上腹腔镜下插入口时膀胱损伤的发生率,并防止膀胱充盈阻塞骨盆视野。然而,置管术有院内感染的风险,并有经济成本。此外,留置导尿管抑制早期活动,增加术后不适。方法采用观察性研究荟萃分析指南进行系统评价,以确定符合条件的出版物。终点包括膀胱损伤、术后泌尿微生物学阳性和术后泌尿症状。结果腹腔镜下膀胱损伤发生率为0% ~ 1.3%。重要的是,膀胱损伤在导尿和非导尿手术中都有发生。我们的荟萃分析还显示,与未导尿的患者相比,导尿患者术后尿中微生物阳性的相对风险为2.33倍(P = 0.01),术后泌尿系统症状的相对风险为2.41倍(P = 0.005)。结论:本荟萃分析表明,在急诊和选择性非肿瘤性腹腔镜盆腔手术中省略导管可能是一种安全的选择。导尿不能消除膀胱损伤的风险,但会导致更多的尿路感染和症状。在麻醉前要求患者立即排尿可能是合理的,之后应进行桌上膀胱扫描。如果残留体积很小,则可能不需要导尿管,除非估计手术时间大于90分钟。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信