Home > DARE Reviews > A meta-analysis comparing suprapubic and...

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet]. York (UK): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK); 1995-.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet].

A meta-analysis comparing suprapubic and transurethral catheterization for bladder drainage after abdominal surgery

Review published: 2006.

Bibliographic details: McPhail M J, Abu Hilal M, Johnson C D.  A meta-analysis comparing suprapubic and transurethral catheterization for bladder drainage after abdominal surgery. British Journal of Surgery 2006; 93(9): 1038-1044. [PubMed: 16804872]

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although bladder drainage is widely used for general surgical patients undergoing laparotomy, there is little consensus on whether suprapubic or transurethral catheterization is better.

METHOD: A systematic database search was undertaken to find all studies of suprapubic catheterization. Randomized controlled trials were identified for inclusion. Endpoints for analysis were bacteriuria, patient satisfaction and recatheterization rates. A meta-analysis was performed using fixed-effect or random-effect models as appropriate, depending on heterogeneity.

RESULTS: After abdominal surgery, transurethral catheterization is associated with significant bacteriuria (relative risk (RR)=2.02, P<0.001, 95 percent confidence interval (c.i.) 1.34 to 3.04) and pain or discomfort (RR=2.94, P=0.004, 95 percent c.i. 1.41 to 6.14). Recatheterization rates using the transurethral method were not increased significantly (RR=1.97, P=0.213, 95 percent c.i. 0.68 to 5.74) with heterogeneity between studies.

CONCLUSION: The suprapubic route for bladder drainage in general surgery is more acceptable to patients and reduces microbiological morbidity.

Copyright (c) 2006 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd.

CRD has determined that this article meets the DARE scientific quality criteria for a systematic review.

Copyright © 2014 University of York.

PMID: 16804872

PubMed Health Blog...

read all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...