4.4 Article

A novel approach to postoperative bladder care in women after radical hysterectomy

Journal

ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS
Volume 286, Issue 4, Pages 1007-1010

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-012-2393-4

Keywords

Radical hysterectomy; Urinary catheter removal; Bladder dysfunction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Currently, controversy exists with regard to the duration of bladder drainage and choice of catheter used in women who undergo radical hysterectomy. In this manuscript, we propose a novel approach to improving postoperative bladder care in women who undergo radical hysterectomy. This is a retrospective study of women who underwent Type 3 Piver radical hysterectomy in a gynaecological oncology centre in the United Kingdom from January 2009 to September 2011. We report the outcomes of removal of urinary catheter 48-72 h following radical hysterectomy. Over a 32-month period, 30 women underwent radical hysterectomy. 19 (63.3 %) women underwent surgery for treatment of cervical cancer, 5 (16.7 %) women for management of endometrial cancer, 6 (20 %) women for other conditions. One patient underwent partial cystectomy at the time of radical hysterectomy and was not included in the analysis. Of the 29 patients, only five (17.2 %) were found to have urinary residuals greater than 100 ml following the removal of the indwelling catheter on the second postoperative day and required recatheterisation. 82.8 % of the patients had the catheter removed within 48-72 h postoperatively. None of these patients required re-admission with urinary retention. Removal of urinary catheter on the second postoperative day following radical hysterectomy is feasible and not associated with increased morbidity. This approach may be particularly useful to complement the introduction of laparoscopic and robotic surgical approaches for surgical management of cervical cancer.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available