Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 20, No. 4, 2003
Issue release date: 2003
Dig Surg 2003;20:290–295

The Effect of Suprapubic Catheterization versus Transurethral Catheterization after Abdominal Surgery on Urinary Tract Infection: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Baan A.H. · Vermeulen H. · van der Meulen J. · Bossuyt P. · Olszyna D. · Gouma D.J.
Departments of aSurgery, bInternal Medicine, and cClinical Epidemiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password

Contact Information

I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in


Background/Aim: Transurethral catheterization is generally associated with a higher incidence of urinary tract infections than suprapubic catheterization; however, suprapubic catheterization is associated with other disadvantages such as higher costs and a more difficult technique, and at the moment there is no consensus about the use of both catheter systems. Therefore, a prospective randomized study was performed to investigate the effects of suprapubic catheterization and transurethral catheterization in patients undergoing surgery on the incidence of urinary tract infections and patient satisfaction. Methods: Patients who underwent an elective laparotomy were randomized and received a suprapubic or transurethral catheter. The primary end point was urinary tract infection. Other parameters of urinary tract infection, as well as duration of catheterization, hospital stay, and number of recatheterizations and of relaparotomies were monitored. Treatment ‘per protocol’ was also analyzed after exclusion of patients receiving another catheter than randomized for. Patients were asked for their satisfaction with the catheters and complaints during and after catheterization. Results: 165 patients were eligible, of whom 19 patients had to be excluded. 75 patients were allocated to receive the suprapubic catheter and 71 the transurethral catheter. There was no difference in the incidence of a urinary tract infection between the suprapubic group (n = 9/75; 12%) and the transurethral group (n = 8/71; 11%). Most patients (6/9) who developed a urinary tract infection in the suprapubic group, however, underwent recatheterization because of postoperative complications/sepsis and relaparotomy. The incidence of urinary tract infections in patients who received a suprapubic catheter and not a transurethral catheter was 3/59 (5%). The patients did not differ with respect to satisfaction and complaints. Being a men, recatheterization and duration of catheterization are risk factors. Conclusions: The incidence of a urinary tract infection between a suprapubic catheter and a transurethral catheter in patients undergoing major surgery was not different. A potential advantage of the suprapubic catheter (reduction of urinary tract infections) is probably partly negated, because transurethral catheters were used if recatheterization was indicated during the postoperative stay or due to complications.

Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.


  1. Bartzen PJ, Hafferty FW: Pelvic laparotomy without an indwelling catheter: A retrospective review of 949 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987;156:1426–1432.
  2. Klaaborg KE, Kronborg O: Suprapubic bladder drainage in elective colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 1986;29:260–262.
  3. Sethia KK, Selkon JB, Berry AR, Turner CM, Kettlewell MG, Gough MHl: Prospective randomized controlled trial of urethral versus suprapubic catheterization. Br J Surg 1987;74:624–625.
  4. Perrin LC, Penfold C, McLeish A: A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing suprapubic with urethral catheterization in rectal surgery. Aust NZ J Surg 1997;67:554–556.
  5. O’Kelly TJ, Mathew A, Ross S, Munro A: Optimum method for urinary drainage in major abdominal surgery: A prospective randomized trial of suprapubic versus urethral catheterization. Br J Surg 1995;82:1367–1368.
  6. Ratnavel CD, Renwick P, Farouk R, Monson JR, Lee PW: Suprapubic versus transurethral catheterization of males undergoing pelvic colorectal surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis 1996;11:177–179.
  7. Shapiro J, Hoffmann J, Jerksy J: A comparison of suprapubic and transurethral drainage for postoperative urinary retention in general surgical patients. Acta Chir Scand 1982;148:323–327.
  8. Horgan AF, Prasad B, Waldron DJ, O’Sullivan DC: Acute urinary retention: Comparison of suprapubic and transurethral catheterisation. Br J Urol 1992;70:149–152.

Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50