Aim: To compare the effect of suprapubic and transurethral catheterization on postvoid residual volumes (PRVs) after cystocele repair. Methods: 126 women who underwent pelvic organ prolapse surgery including cystocele repair were randomized to suprapubic or transurethral catheterization. At the third postoperative day, PRVs were measured. The number of women with PRV >150 ml, need for prolonged catheterization, recatheterization, length of hospital stay, frequency of urinary tract infections and complications were determined. Results: PRVs exceeded 150 ml in 13 out of 64 (20%) and 14 out of 62 (23%) women in the suprapubic and transurethral group, respectively (p = 0.76). In the suprapubic group a higher rate of urine leakage was noted (27 vs. 7%, p = 0.003). 10 women (16%) allocated to the suprapubic group switched to transurethral catheterization, because of problems with the suprapubic catheter. No protocol deviations were reported in the transurethral group. Of the women in both groups, 9% developed urinary tract infections (p = 0.93). Conclusions: Suprapubic catheterization was comparable to transurethral catheterization in the prevention of postoperative voiding dysfunction after vaginal prolapse surgery, but it was associated with a higher rate of complications.

Keywords:
Cystocele repair, Pelvic organ prolapse surgery, Randomized controlled trial, Urinary retention, Urinary catheterization
1.
Andersen JT, Heisterberg L, Hebjørn S, Petersen K, Stampe Sørensen S, Fischer-Rasmussen W, Mølsted Pedersen L, Nielsen NC: Suprapubic versus transurethral bladder drainage after colposuspension/vaginal repair. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1985;64:139–143.
2.
Bødker B, Lose G: Postoperative urinary retention in gynecologic patients. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2003;14:94–97.
3.
Hakvoort RA, Elberink R, Vollebregt A, Ploeg T, Emanuel MH: How long should urinary bladder catheterisation be continued after vaginal prolapse surgery? A randomised controlled trial comparing short-term versus long-term catheterisation after vaginal prolapse surgery. BJOG 2004;111:828–830.
4.
Wiser WL, Morrison JC, Loveday GL, McIntosh RE, Kennedy BS, Shaw BH, Fish SA: Management of bladder drainage following vaginal plastic repairs. Obstet Gynecol 1974;44:65–71.
5.
Harms E, Christmann U, Klöck FK: Suprapubic urinary diversion following gynecologic operations. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 1985;45:254–260.
6.
Hakvoort RA, Burger MP, Emanuel MH, Roovers JP: A nationwide survey to measure practice variation of catheterisation management in patients undergoing vaginal prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2009;20:813–818.
7.
Lee RA: Vaginal hysterectomy with repair of enterocele, cystocele, and rectocele; in Rock JA, Jones HW (eds): TeLinde’s Operative Gynecology, ed 9. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2003, pp 986–998.
8.
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.
9.
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.
10.
Sethia KK, Selkon JB, Berry AR, Turner CM, Kettlewell MG, Gough MH: Prospective randomized controlled trial of urethral versus suprapubic catheterization. Br J Surg 1987;74:624–625.
11.
Shapiro J, Hoffmann J, Jersky J: A comparison of suprapubic and transurethral drainage for postoperative urinary retention in general surgical patients. Acta Chir Scand 1982;148:323–327.
12.
Vandoni RE, Lironi A, Tschantz P: Bacteriuria during urinary tract catheterization: suprapubic versus urethral route: a prospective randomized trial. Acta Chir Belg 1994;94:12–16.
13.
Bergman A, Matthews L, Ballard CA, Roy S: Suprapubic versus transurethral bladder drainage after surgery for stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 1987;69:546–549.
14.
Nwabineli NJ, Walsh DJ, Davis JA: Urinary drainage following radical hysterectomy for cervical carcinoma – a pilot comparison of urethral and suprapubic routes. Int J Gynecol Cancer 1993;3:208–210.
15.
Schiøtz HA, Malme PA, Tanbo TG: Urinary tract infections and asymptomatic bacteriuria after vaginal plastic surgery. A comparison of suprapubic and transurethral catheters. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1989;68:453–455.
16.
Ahluwalia RS, Johal N, Kouriefs C, Kooiman G, Montgomery BS, Plail RO: The surgical risk of suprapubic catheter insertion and long-term sequelae. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2006;88:210–213.
17.
Parikh A, Chapple CR, Hampson SJ: Suprapubic catheterisation and bowel injury. Br J Urol 1992;70:212–213.
18.
Glavind K, Mørup L, Madsen H, Glavind J: A prospective, randomised, controlled trial comparing 3 hour and 24 hour postoperative removal of bladder catheter and vaginal pack following vaginal prolapse surgery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007;86:1122–1125.
19.
Phipps S, Lim YN, McClinton S, Barry C, Rane A, N’Dow J: Short-term urinary catheter policies following urogenital surgery in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;19:CD004374.
© 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel
2011
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
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.
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 government 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.
You do not currently have access to this content.