Dataset Information

Timing of urinary catheter removal after colorectal surgery with pelvic dissection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Urinary catheters are routinely placed before colorectal surgery. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) recommends their removal as soon as possible. However, premature removal risks urinary retention, and delayed removal increases risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs). This meta-analysis aims to synthesise the published literature on the optimal timing of urinary catheter removal following colorectal surgery with pelvic dissection.

Materials and methods

The protocol for this meta-analysis is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019150030).Pubmed, Ovid and Web of Science databases were searched (January 2020). Primary outcomes included urinary retention and catheter associated UTI. The intervention was removal of urinary catheter following colorectal surgery with pelvic dissection on postoperative days 1-2 (early); 3-4 (intermediate); or 5+ (late). Meta-analysis was performed using Comprehensive meta-analysis V2.

Results

Eight papers were analysed. 883 patients had early catheter removal, 236 intermediate and 204 late. Early catheter removal was associated with increased risk of urinary retention when compared to late removal RR = 2.352 95% CI = 1.370-4.038 (p = 0.002). No significant difference in urinary retention was found between early and intermediate or intermediate and late catheter removal groups. Early catheter removal was associated with reduced risk of UTIs compared to late removal RR = 0.498, 95% CI 0.306-0.811, (p = 0.005). No significant difference in UTIs was found between early and intermediate or intermediate and late catheter removal groups.

Conclusions

Removal of urinary catheters on postoperative day 3-4 provides a balance between minimising the risks of urinary retention and UTIs. This analysis can be used to finesse future ERAS protocols concerning catheter removal in colorectal surgery involving pelvic dissection.

SUBMITTER: McIntosh S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8685994 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPost-catheter removal sepsis (PCRS) is a notable complication of indwelling central venous catheters (CVCs) in neonates, which is postulated to be secondary to the disruption of biofilms formed along catheter tips up on CVCs removal. It remains controversial whether this could be prevented by antibiotic use upon CVCs removal. We aimed to evaluate the protective effect of antibiotic administration at the time of CVCs removal.MethodsWe searched through PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane databases and reference lists of review articles for studies comparing the use of antibiotics versus no use within 12 h of CVCs removal. Risk of bias was assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk-of-bias tool accordingly. Results of quantitative analyses were presented as mean differences (MD) or odds ratio (OR). Subgroup and univariate meta-regression analyses were performed to identify heterogeneity.ResultsThe review included 470 CVCs in the antibiotic group and 658 in the control group. Antibiotic use within 12 h of CVCs removal did not significantly reduce the incidence of PCRS (OR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.08-1.53), but was associated with a lower incidence of post-catheter removal blood stream infection (OR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.11-0.86). Dosage of vancomycin and world region were major sources of heterogeneity.ConclusionAntibiotic administration upon CVCs removal does not significantly reduce the incidence of PCRS but offers less post-catheter removal blood stream infection. Whether this will be converted to better clinical outcomes lacks evidential support. Further randomized controlled studies with longer follow-up are needed.SummaryResults of our meta-analysis suggest that antibiotic use at planned central line removal removal does not significantly reduce the incidence of PCRS but offers less blood stream infection, which might contribute to future management of central lines in neonates.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/, PROSPERO (CRD42022359677).

Project description:BackgroundBoth long (> 30 days) and short-term (≤ 30 days) catheterisation has been associated with urinary tract infections (UTIs) due to the invasive nature of device insertion through the urethra. Catheter associated Urinary Tract Infections (CAUTIs) are common (prevalence of ~ 8.5%) infections which can be treated with antibiotics; however, CAUTIs are both expensive to treat and contributes to the antibiotic usage crisis. As catheters are unlikely be replaced for the management of patients' urination, ways of reducing CAUTIs are sought out, using the catheter device itself. The aim of this review is to assess the incidence of CAUTI and the causative micro-organisms when different urinary catheter devices have been used by humans, as reported in published research articles.MethodsA Systematic Literature Review was conducted in Ovid Medline, Web of Science and PubMed, to identify studies which investigated the incidence of UTI and the causative micro-organisms, in patients with different urinary catheter devices. The articles were selected based on a strict set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data regarding UTI incidence was extracted and calculated odds ratio were compared across studies and pooled when types of catheters were compared. CAUTI causative micro-organisms, if stated within the research pieces, were also gathered.ResultsA total of 890 articles were identified, but only 26 unique articles met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for this review. Amongst the large cohort there were catheters of materials silicone, latex and PVC and catheter modifications of silver nanoparticles and nitrofurantoin antibiotics. The meta-analysis did not provide a clear choice towards a single catheter against another although silver-based catheters, and silver alloy, appeared to statistically reduce the OR of developing CAUTIs. At genus level the three commonest bacteria identified across the cohort were E. coli, Enterococcus spp. and Pseudomonas spp. whilst considering only at the genus level, with E. coli, Klebsiella pneumonia and Enterococcus faecalis most common at the species-specific level.ConclusionsThere does not appear to be a catheter type, which can significantly reduce the incidence of CAUTI's in patients requiring catheterisation. Ultimately, this warrants further research to identify and develop a catheter device material that will reduce the incidence for CAUTIs.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate if immediate catheter removal (ICR) after laparoscopic hysterectomy is associated with similar retention outcomes compared with delayed removal (DCR).Study designNon-inferiority randomised controlled trial.PopulationWomen undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy in six hospitals in the Netherlands.MethodsWomen were randomised to ICR or DCR (between 18 and 24 hours after surgery).Primary outcomeThe inability to void within 6 hours after catheter removal.ResultsOne hundred and fifty-five women were randomised to ICR (n = 74) and DCR (n = 81). The intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis could not demonstrate the non-inferiority of ICR: ten women with ICR could not urinate spontaneously within 6 hours compared with none in the delayed group (risk difference 13.5%, 5.6-24.8, P = 0.88). However, seven of these women could void spontaneously within 9 hours without additional intervention. Regarding the secondary outcomes, eight women from the delayed group requested earlier catheter removal because of complaints (9.9%). Three women with ICR (4.1%) had a urinary tract infection postoperatively versus eight with DCR (9.9%, risk difference -5.8%, -15.1 to 3.5, P = 0.215). Women with ICR mobilised significantly earlier (5.7 hours, 0.8-23.3 versus 21.0 hours, 1.4-29.9; P ≤ 0.001).ConclusionThe non-inferiority of ICR could not be demonstrated in terms of urinary retention 6 hours after procedure. However, 70% of the women with voiding difficulties could void spontaneously within 9 hours after laparoscopic hysterectomy. It is therefore questionable if all observed urinary retention cases were clinically relevant. As a result, the clinical advantages of ICR may still outweigh the risk of bladder retention and it should therefore be considered after uncomplicated laparoscopic hysterectomy.Tweetable abstractThe advantages of immediate catheter removal after laparoscopic hysterectomy seem to outweigh the risk of bladder retention.