Urology · 2015
Modification of Technique for Suprapubic Catheter Placement After Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Reduces Catheter-associated Complications.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Afzal Muhammad Zubair, Tobert Conrad M, Bulica Emi, Noyes Sabrina L, Lane Brian R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with urinary drainage using a modified technique for suprapubic catheter (SPC) placement with those undergoing a previously described technique for SPC placement and those with urethral catheter (UC) alone.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of 225 consecutive patients who underwent RARP by a single surgeon. The most recent patients were contacted via a telephone survey with 86 responses (69%) received.
RESULTS: After RARP, 174 patients had only UC placement (77%) and 51 had an SPC placed (23%). Twelve patients had SPC placement with a 4-mL balloon (SPC-4), with catheter-related complications occurring in four patients (33%). The technique was modified to use SPC with a 10-mL balloon (SPC-10). Only 2 of 39 SPC-10 patients (5%) had catheter-related complications (P = .03 vs SPC-4). Continence rates at 6 weeks were 83% and 82% for UC and SPC, respectively. Based on postoperative survey results using a 10-point scale, overall experience with RARP was rated 8.9 ± 1.7 and 8.7 ± 2.3 for UC and SPC, respectively (P = .63). Mean catheter bother was rated 5.1 ± 3.0 and 4.6 ± 2.9 for UC and SPC, respectively (P = .45).
CONCLUSION: SPC provides a safe option for patients who would prefer not to have UC following RARP, with equivalent perioperative outcomes. Modification of the published technique to place a standard 16F catheter results in fewer catheter-related complications.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of 225 consecutive patients who underwent RARP by a single surgeon. The most recent patients were contacted via a telephone survey with 86 responses (69%) received.
RESULTS: After RARP, 174 patients had only UC placement (77%) and 51 had an SPC placed (23%). Twelve patients had SPC placement with a 4-mL balloon (SPC-4), with catheter-related complications occurring in four patients (33%). The technique was modified to use SPC with a 10-mL balloon (SPC-10). Only 2 of 39 SPC-10 patients (5%) had catheter-related complications (P = .03 vs SPC-4). Continence rates at 6 weeks were 83% and 82% for UC and SPC, respectively. Based on postoperative survey results using a 10-point scale, overall experience with RARP was rated 8.9 ± 1.7 and 8.7 ± 2.3 for UC and SPC, respectively (P = .63). Mean catheter bother was rated 5.1 ± 3.0 and 4.6 ± 2.9 for UC and SPC, respectively (P = .45).
CONCLUSION: SPC provides a safe option for patients who would prefer not to have UC following RARP, with equivalent perioperative outcomes. Modification of the published technique to place a standard 16F catheter results in fewer catheter-related complications.