4.2 Article

Ureteral catheter placement for prevention of ureteral injury during laparoscopic hysterectomy

Journal

JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY RESEARCH
Volume 34, Issue 1, Pages 67-72

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2007.00686.x

Keywords

cystoscopy; laparoscopic hysterectomy; ureteral catheter; ureteral injury

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: Ureteral injury is among the most devastating complications of gynecologic surgery. Estimated incidence of ureteral injury during laparoscopic hysterectomy is 2.6-35 times (0.2-6.0%) that in abdominal hysterectomy. We investigated preoperative ureteral catheter (UC) placement as a way to prevent ureteral injury in laparoscopic hysterectomy. Methods: Clinical records of 94 women who underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy between February 2006 and January 2007 in Yazaki Hospital, Kanagawa, Japan, were reviewed retrospectively. Thirty-four patients between February and June 2006 underwent the surgery without ureteral catheterization and 60 patients between July 2006 and January 2007 underwent surgery with ureteral catheterization. Clinical outcomes were statistically compared between the two groups. Results: The average time required for catheter insertion was 9.35 min. The ureter in which the catheter was placed was visualized clearly. In one patient, whose left ureter was deviated by a massive myoma, catheter insertion was not possible. No complications arose from catheter placement except for minor complaints including low back pain, urinary discomfort, and transient hamaturia. While one injury occurred in a patient without ureteral catheterization (1/34), no ureteral injury occurred in any patient with ureteral catheterization (0/60). Operative time, total blood loss, and hospital stay were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusions: UC placement is simple, helping to prevent ureteral injury during laparoscopic hysterectomy and enhancing safety of this procedure.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available