Comparing Postoperative Urinary Retention Rates Between Robotic Apical Prolapse Repairs.

IF 0.8 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Kaythi Khin, Shaun T Adair, Laura Dhariwal, Erika Wasenda, Ellie Leong, Stephanie Chiu, Carolyn Botros
{"title":"Comparing Postoperative Urinary Retention Rates Between Robotic Apical Prolapse Repairs.","authors":"Kaythi Khin, Shaun T Adair, Laura Dhariwal, Erika Wasenda, Ellie Leong, Stephanie Chiu, Carolyn Botros","doi":"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001529","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Understanding the risk of urinary retention with different prolapse repair surgical procedures is important for perioperative counseling.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The study compared postoperative urinary retention rates between robotic sacrocolpopexy and robotic uterosacral ligament suspension.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>This institutional review board-exempt retrospective cohort study compared patients who underwent pelvic organ prolapse repair with robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSCP) and robotic uterosacral ligament suspension (RUSLS) between June 2018 and March 2022. Our primary outcome was the rate of acute postoperative urinary retention (POUR) in these groups. Secondary outcomes were the number of days needed to resolve urinary retention and persistent voiding dysfunction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 298 patients, 258 underwent RSCP and 40 underwent RUSLS. Acute POUR was found in 73 patients (24%): 46 patients (18%) in the RSCP group versus 26 patients (65%) in the RUSLS group (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis demonstrated a significantly higher rate of acute POUR after RUSLS (odds ratio [OR] = 17.92, confidence interval [CI] = 3.06-104.86; P = 0.001). Patients with an elevated preoperative postvoid residual volume >100 mL or concomitant midurethral sling were more likely to develop POUR (OR = 2.93, CI = 1.43-5.98; P = 0.003 and OR = 2.19, CI = 1.16-4.14; P = 0.016, respectively). While patients with higher parity were less likely to have urinary retention (OR = 0.71, CI = 0.53-0.96; P = 0.024), age, body mass index, prolapse stage, and concurrent posterior repair did not affect the urinary retention rate significantly. The number of days needed to resolve POUR and persistent voiding dysfunction were similar.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Acute POUR appears more likely to develop after RUSLS compared to RSCP. Elevated preoperative postvoid residual volume and concomitant midurethral sling surgery independently increase the risk of POUR.</p>","PeriodicalId":75288,"journal":{"name":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001529","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: Understanding the risk of urinary retention with different prolapse repair surgical procedures is important for perioperative counseling.

Objective: The study compared postoperative urinary retention rates between robotic sacrocolpopexy and robotic uterosacral ligament suspension.

Study design: This institutional review board-exempt retrospective cohort study compared patients who underwent pelvic organ prolapse repair with robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSCP) and robotic uterosacral ligament suspension (RUSLS) between June 2018 and March 2022. Our primary outcome was the rate of acute postoperative urinary retention (POUR) in these groups. Secondary outcomes were the number of days needed to resolve urinary retention and persistent voiding dysfunction.

Results: Out of 298 patients, 258 underwent RSCP and 40 underwent RUSLS. Acute POUR was found in 73 patients (24%): 46 patients (18%) in the RSCP group versus 26 patients (65%) in the RUSLS group (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis demonstrated a significantly higher rate of acute POUR after RUSLS (odds ratio [OR] = 17.92, confidence interval [CI] = 3.06-104.86; P = 0.001). Patients with an elevated preoperative postvoid residual volume >100 mL or concomitant midurethral sling were more likely to develop POUR (OR = 2.93, CI = 1.43-5.98; P = 0.003 and OR = 2.19, CI = 1.16-4.14; P = 0.016, respectively). While patients with higher parity were less likely to have urinary retention (OR = 0.71, CI = 0.53-0.96; P = 0.024), age, body mass index, prolapse stage, and concurrent posterior repair did not affect the urinary retention rate significantly. The number of days needed to resolve POUR and persistent voiding dysfunction were similar.

Conclusions: Acute POUR appears more likely to develop after RUSLS compared to RSCP. Elevated preoperative postvoid residual volume and concomitant midurethral sling surgery independently increase the risk of POUR.

比较不同机器人鼻尖脱垂修复术的术后尿潴留率
重要性:了解不同脱垂修复手术的尿潴留风险对于围手术期咨询非常重要:该研究比较了机器人骶骨结节成形术和机器人子宫骶骨韧带悬吊术的术后尿潴留率:这项机构审查委员会豁免的回顾性队列研究比较了2018年6月至2022年3月期间接受机器人骶骨结扎术(RSCP)和机器人子宫骶骨韧带悬吊术(RUSLS)进行盆腔器官脱垂修复的患者。我们的主要结果是这些组别的术后急性尿潴留(POUR)率。次要结果是解决尿潴留和持续排尿功能障碍所需的天数:在 298 名患者中,258 人接受了 RSCP,40 人接受了 RUSLS。73名患者(24%)出现急性尿潴留:RSCP组有46名患者(18%),RUSLS组有26名患者(65%)(P < 0.001)。多变量分析显示,RUSLS 术后急性 POUR 的发生率明显更高(几率比 [OR] = 17.92,置信区间 [CI] = 3.06-104.86;P = 0.001)。术前排尿后残余尿量大于 100 mL 或同时使用尿道中段吊带的患者更容易发生 POUR(OR = 2.93,CI = 1.43-5.98;P = 0.003 和 OR = 2.19,CI = 1.16-4.14;P = 0.016)。虽然胎次越多的患者发生尿潴留的可能性越小(OR = 0.71,CI = 0.53-0.96;P = 0.024),但年龄、体重指数、脱垂分期和同时进行的后路修复对尿潴留发生率没有显著影响。解决POUR和持续性排尿功能障碍所需的天数相似:结论:与RSCP相比,RUSLS术后更容易出现急性尿潴留。术前排尿后残余尿量升高和同时进行尿道中段吊带手术会单独增加发生 POUR 的风险。
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
CiteScore
2.80
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