The Australian and New Zealand journal of surgery · 1997
A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing suprapubic with urethral catheterization in rectal surgery.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное 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.
Perrin L C, Penfold C, McLeish A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Bladder drainage is necessary for several days following rectal surgery. Urethral catheterization has long been known to be associated with significant morbidity. Therefore a prospective randomized trial was performed to determine if this morbidity could be decreased by suprapubic catheterization.
METHODS: One hundred and thirty-seven patients undergoing rectal surgery were prospectively randomized to either suprapubic or urethral catheterization.
RESULTS: After exclusions, 108 patients were analysed. Of the 49 patients with suprapubic catheters there was 14% morbidity, and of the 59 patients with urethral catheters there was 32% morbidity. Significant bacteriuria was halved with suprapubic catheterization. Patient acceptability of suprapubic catheterization was high, and there was no increased morbidity in any of the areas studied.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that suprapubic catheterization has advantages over urethral catheterization with decreased bacteriuria, and greater patient acceptability. However, the significance of decreased bacteriuria is not clear and therefore we can only say suprapubic catheter drainage is comparable to urethral catheter drainage.
METHODS: One hundred and thirty-seven patients undergoing rectal surgery were prospectively randomized to either suprapubic or urethral catheterization.
RESULTS: After exclusions, 108 patients were analysed. Of the 49 patients with suprapubic catheters there was 14% morbidity, and of the 59 patients with urethral catheters there was 32% morbidity. Significant bacteriuria was halved with suprapubic catheterization. Patient acceptability of suprapubic catheterization was high, and there was no increased morbidity in any of the areas studied.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that suprapubic catheterization has advantages over urethral catheterization with decreased bacteriuria, and greater patient acceptability. However, the significance of decreased bacteriuria is not clear and therefore we can only say suprapubic catheter drainage is comparable to urethral catheter drainage.