Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2026
Same-surgeon vs separate-surgeon prophylactic ureteral catheterization in colectomy and proctectomy: a national retrospective cohort study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wu George L, Zeller Matthew, Wetherell Joseph, Felton Jessica, Nasseri Yosef, Wolf Joshua H
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Prophylactic ureteral catheterization (PUC) facilitates ureteral identification during colorectal surgery, but little is known about the outcomes when catheterization is performed by the index colorectal surgeon rather than by a separate surgeon.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted colectomy and proctectomy data between 2012 and 2024. Adult patients undergoing colectomy and proctectomy with PUC were classified according to whether PUC was performed by the index surgeon (IS-PUC) or by a separate surgeon (SS-PUC). Temporal trends, patient and operative characteristics, postoperative outcomes, and operative time were compared using unadjusted analyzes and multivariable regression models.
RESULTS: Among 24,072 cases, catheterization was performed by the index surgeon in 1365 cases (5.7%) and by a separate surgeon in 22,707 cases (94.3%). IS-PUC remained uncommon, with no significant linear increase over time, and was more frequent in robotic operations, colectomy, nonelective cases, women, and older patients. After adjustment, IS-PUC was not associated with higher odds of overall complication, serious complication, urinary tract infection, ureteral injury, or mortality. IS-PUC was associated with a shorter operative time (β, -10.47 min; 95% CI, -16.58 to -4.36; P <.001).
CONCLUSION: IS-PUC remained uncommon nationally and was associated with shorter operative time, whereas no statistically significant differences in adjusted 30-day outcomes were observed compared with SS-PUC. These findings provide hypothesis-generating data regarding IS-PUC in selected settings and warrant prospective evaluation of case selection, workflow, training, and credentialing.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted colectomy and proctectomy data between 2012 and 2024. Adult patients undergoing colectomy and proctectomy with PUC were classified according to whether PUC was performed by the index surgeon (IS-PUC) or by a separate surgeon (SS-PUC). Temporal trends, patient and operative characteristics, postoperative outcomes, and operative time were compared using unadjusted analyzes and multivariable regression models.
RESULTS: Among 24,072 cases, catheterization was performed by the index surgeon in 1365 cases (5.7%) and by a separate surgeon in 22,707 cases (94.3%). IS-PUC remained uncommon, with no significant linear increase over time, and was more frequent in robotic operations, colectomy, nonelective cases, women, and older patients. After adjustment, IS-PUC was not associated with higher odds of overall complication, serious complication, urinary tract infection, ureteral injury, or mortality. IS-PUC was associated with a shorter operative time (β, -10.47 min; 95% CI, -16.58 to -4.36; P <.001).
CONCLUSION: IS-PUC remained uncommon nationally and was associated with shorter operative time, whereas no statistically significant differences in adjusted 30-day outcomes were observed compared with SS-PUC. These findings provide hypothesis-generating data regarding IS-PUC in selected settings and warrant prospective evaluation of case selection, workflow, training, and credentialing.