导尿管拔除时间对根治性前列腺切除术后尿失禁的影响:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Zhenlang Guo, Jun Pan, Zhaohui Wang, Guixing Tang, Franky Leung Chan, Zunguang Bai, Junwei He
{"title":"导尿管拔除时间对根治性前列腺切除术后尿失禁的影响:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Zhenlang Guo, Jun Pan, Zhaohui Wang, Guixing Tang, Franky Leung Chan, Zunguang Bai, Junwei He","doi":"10.1007/s11845-025-04075-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimal length of postoperative catheterisation time after radical prostatectomy remains to be controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to explore the impact of catheter removal time on urinary continence after radical prostatectomy (RP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify eligible studies published before June 2025. The inverse variance method with random-effects modeling was used to calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) and their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen studies comprising 4,159 patients who underwent RP matched our eligibility criteria. Early catheter removal was associated with an increased likelihood of urinary retention (OR = 2.20, 95% CI: 1.22-3.95) in the postoperative day (POD) 2 group compared to more than POD 2 days group. However, this significant difference was not observed in patients with POD 3 (vs POD > 3, OR = 1.37, 95% CI: 0.37-5.09), patients with POD 4 (vs POD > 4, OR = 4.41, 95% CI: 0.88-22.18), and patients with POD 7 (vs POD > 7, OR = 6.49, 95% CI: 0.80-52.83). Moreover, early removal of the catheter was not associated with an increased risk of urinary incontinence (OR = 1.25, 95% CI: 0.58-2.68), anastomotic leakage (OR = 1.22, 95% CI: 0.76-1.96), vesical neck stenosis (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.09-5.83) compared to the regular group. The findings are robust, as indicated by sensitivity and meta-regression analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Early catheter removal seems feasible, but one should be aware of the increased risk of urinary retention, especially in patients of POD 2. Moreover, it seems to be safe in terms of urinary incontinence, anastomotic leakage, and vesical neck stenosis. We hope that our findings will help to guide the standardised management of catheter removal after RP, and early catheter-free discharge after RP may provide relevant clinical benefits for these patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":14507,"journal":{"name":"Irish Journal of Medical Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effect of the timing of catheter removal on postoperative urinary continence after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Zhenlang Guo, Jun Pan, Zhaohui Wang, Guixing Tang, Franky Leung Chan, Zunguang Bai, Junwei He\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11845-025-04075-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimal length of postoperative catheterisation time after radical prostatectomy remains to be controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to explore the impact of catheter removal time on urinary continence after radical prostatectomy (RP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify eligible studies published before June 2025. The inverse variance method with random-effects modeling was used to calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) and their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen studies comprising 4,159 patients who underwent RP matched our eligibility criteria. Early catheter removal was associated with an increased likelihood of urinary retention (OR = 2.20, 95% CI: 1.22-3.95) in the postoperative day (POD) 2 group compared to more than POD 2 days group. However, this significant difference was not observed in patients with POD 3 (vs POD > 3, OR = 1.37, 95% CI: 0.37-5.09), patients with POD 4 (vs POD > 4, OR = 4.41, 95% CI: 0.88-22.18), and patients with POD 7 (vs POD > 7, OR = 6.49, 95% CI: 0.80-52.83). Moreover, early removal of the catheter was not associated with an increased risk of urinary incontinence (OR = 1.25, 95% CI: 0.58-2.68), anastomotic leakage (OR = 1.22, 95% CI: 0.76-1.96), vesical neck stenosis (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.09-5.83) compared to the regular group. The findings are robust, as indicated by sensitivity and meta-regression analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Early catheter removal seems feasible, but one should be aware of the increased risk of urinary retention, especially in patients of POD 2. Moreover, it seems to be safe in terms of urinary incontinence, anastomotic leakage, and vesical neck stenosis. We hope that our findings will help to guide the standardised management of catheter removal after RP, and early catheter-free discharge after RP may provide relevant clinical benefits for these patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14507,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Irish Journal of Medical Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Irish Journal of Medical Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-025-04075-3\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Irish Journal of Medical Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-025-04075-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:根治性前列腺切除术后最佳导尿时间的长度仍然存在争议。我们进行了一项荟萃分析,探讨根治性前列腺切除术(RP)后拔管时间对尿失禁的影响。方法:检索MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane Library和Web of Science数据库,以确定2025年6月前发表的符合条件的研究。采用随机效应模型的反方差法计算总比值比(ORs)及其相关的95%置信区间(ci)。结果:15项研究包括4159例接受RP的患者符合我们的资格标准。与术后2天以上组相比,早期拔管与术后2天组尿潴留的可能性增加相关(OR = 2.20, 95% CI: 1.22-3.95)。然而,在POD 3患者(与POD bbb3相比,OR = 1.37, 95% CI: 0.37-5.09)、POD 4患者(与POD >相比,OR = 4.41, 95% CI: 0.88-22.18)和POD 7患者(与POD >相比,OR = 6.49, 95% CI: 0.80-52.83)中没有观察到这种显著差异。此外,与常规组相比,早期拔除导管与尿失禁(OR = 1.25, 95% CI: 0.58-2.68)、吻合口漏(OR = 1.22, 95% CI: 0.76-1.96)、膀胱颈狭窄(OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.09-5.83)的风险增加无关。正如敏感性和meta回归分析所表明的那样,研究结果是稳健的。结论:早期拔管似乎是可行的,但应注意尿潴留的风险增加,特别是在POD 2患者中。此外,在尿失禁、吻合口漏和膀胱颈狭窄方面,它似乎是安全的。我们希望我们的研究结果有助于指导RP术后拔管的规范化管理,RP术后早期无导管出院可能为这些患者提供相关的临床益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The effect of the timing of catheter removal on postoperative urinary continence after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: The optimal length of postoperative catheterisation time after radical prostatectomy remains to be controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to explore the impact of catheter removal time on urinary continence after radical prostatectomy (RP).

Methods: The MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify eligible studies published before June 2025. The inverse variance method with random-effects modeling was used to calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) and their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: Fifteen studies comprising 4,159 patients who underwent RP matched our eligibility criteria. Early catheter removal was associated with an increased likelihood of urinary retention (OR = 2.20, 95% CI: 1.22-3.95) in the postoperative day (POD) 2 group compared to more than POD 2 days group. However, this significant difference was not observed in patients with POD 3 (vs POD > 3, OR = 1.37, 95% CI: 0.37-5.09), patients with POD 4 (vs POD > 4, OR = 4.41, 95% CI: 0.88-22.18), and patients with POD 7 (vs POD > 7, OR = 6.49, 95% CI: 0.80-52.83). Moreover, early removal of the catheter was not associated with an increased risk of urinary incontinence (OR = 1.25, 95% CI: 0.58-2.68), anastomotic leakage (OR = 1.22, 95% CI: 0.76-1.96), vesical neck stenosis (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.09-5.83) compared to the regular group. The findings are robust, as indicated by sensitivity and meta-regression analyses.

Conclusions: Early catheter removal seems feasible, but one should be aware of the increased risk of urinary retention, especially in patients of POD 2. Moreover, it seems to be safe in terms of urinary incontinence, anastomotic leakage, and vesical neck stenosis. We hope that our findings will help to guide the standardised management of catheter removal after RP, and early catheter-free discharge after RP may provide relevant clinical benefits for these patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Irish Journal of Medical Science
Irish Journal of Medical Science 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
357
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Irish Journal of Medical Science is the official organ of the Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland. Established in 1832, this quarterly journal is a contribution to medical science and an ideal forum for the younger medical/scientific professional to enter world literature and an ideal launching platform now, as in the past, for many a young research worker. The primary role of both the Academy and IJMS is that of providing a forum for the exchange of scientific information and to promote academic discussion, so essential to scientific progress.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信