OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the relationship between the use of epidural analgesia during labor and acute postpartum urinary retention. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using 1994 labor and postpartum health records from 3 primary care centers. RESULTS: Logistic regression analysis revealed that a longer second stage of labor (odds ratio [OR] 2.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41-4.85), use of systemic narcotics (OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.04-2.57), perineal laceration (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.02-2.91), and instrumental delivery (OR 1.86; 95% CI 1.16-2.97) predicted urinary retention. There was a trend toward association of epidural analgesia and urinary retention (OR 1.69; 95% CI 0.98-2.92). Propensity score analysis revealed that any effect of epidural analgesia was likely due to effect modification of other obstetric variables. CONCLUSION: Epidural analgesia during labor may increase the risk of developing urinary retention by up to 3 times. However, this effect is mediated by other obstetric variables.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the relationship between the use of epidural analgesia during labor and acute postpartum urinary retention. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using 1994 labor and postpartum health records from 3 primary care centers. RESULTS: Logistic regression analysis revealed that a longer second stage of labor (odds ratio [OR] 2.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41-4.85), use of systemic narcotics (OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.04-2.57), perineal laceration (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.02-2.91), and instrumental delivery (OR 1.86; 95% CI 1.16-2.97) predicted urinary retention. There was a trend toward association of epidural analgesia and urinary retention (OR 1.69; 95% CI 0.98-2.92). Propensity score analysis revealed that any effect of epidural analgesia was likely due to effect modification of other obstetric variables. CONCLUSION: Epidural analgesia during labor may increase the risk of developing urinary retention by up to 3 times. However, this effect is mediated by other obstetric variables.
Authors: F E M Mulder; R A Hakvoort; M A Schoffelmeer; J Limpens; J A M Van der Post; J P W R Roovers Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2014-05-20 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Sharon A Gilbert; William A Grobman; Mark B Landon; Catherine Y Spong; Dwight J Rouse; Kenneth J Leveno; Michael W Varner; Steve N Caritis; Paul J Meis; Yoram Sorokin; Marshall Carpenter; Mary J O'Sullivan; Baha M Sibai; John M Thorp; Susan M Ramin; Brian M Mercer Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Kristjana Einarsdóttir; Sarah Stock; Fatima Haggar; Geoffrey Hammond; Amanda T Langridge; David B Preen; Nick De Klerk; Helen Leonard; Fiona J Stanley Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Stefan Mohr; Luigi Raio; Ursula Gobrecht-Keller; Sara Imboden; Michael D Mueller; Annette Kuhn Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 1.932
Authors: Nigel Lee; Lena B Mårtensson; Caroline Homer; Joan Webster; Kristen Gibbons; Helen Stapleton; Natalie Dos Santos; Michael Beckmann; Yu Gao; Sue Kildea Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2013-05-03 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Kristjana Einarsdóttir; Fatima A Haggar; Amanda T Langridge; Anthony S Gunnell; Helen Leonard; Fiona J Stanley Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-02-04 Impact factor: 2.655