Literature DB >> 22404531

Suprapubic versus transurethral bladder drainage after radical prostatectomy: impact on patient discomfort.

Seiichi Orikasa1, Koichi Kanbe, Shuichi Shirai, Ichiro Shintaku, Seiichi Kurosu.   

Abstract

We evaluated the feasibility and the benefits of total prostatectomy with suprapubic cystostomy drainage instead of a urethral Foley catheter. Of 65 consecutive total retropubic prostatectomies, 42 were carried out with the suprapubic cystostomy, and 23 with the urethral Foley catheter. Patients were asked postoperatively to complete a 5-cm visual analog scale on pain intensity related to the catheter and to urination after catheter removal. No problem related to cystostomy per se was observed. In the cystostomy group, over 85% and 69% of men perceived no urinary symptoms during catherization and no painful urination after catheter removal, respectively; whereas in the Foley group, 91% and 65% perceived those symptoms (P < 0.001 and P < 0.01, respectively). These findings suggest that urethral catheter-free prostatectomy is a good alternative to that with a urethral Foley catheter, and it gives patients an improved quality of early postoperative life.
© 2012 The Japanese Urological Association.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22404531     DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2012.02980.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Urol        ISSN: 0919-8172            Impact factor:   3.369


  8 in total

1.  Superior early and long-term continence following early micturition on day 2 after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a randomized prospective trial.

Authors:  Nina Natascha Harke; Christian Wagner; Nikolaos Liakos; Katarina Urbanova; Mustapha Addali; Boris A Hadaschik; Jorn H Witt
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2020-05-02       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Removing the urinary catheter on post-operative day 2 after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a feasibility study from a single high-volume referral centre.

Authors:  Aldo Brassetti; Flavia Proietti; Antonio Cardi; Antonio De Vico; Antonio Iannello; Alberto Pansadoro; Aldo Scapellato; Tommaso Riga; Paolo Emiliozzi; Gianluca D'Elia
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-11-25

3.  Indwelling urethral versus suprapubic catheters in nursing home residents: determining the safest option for long-term use.

Authors:  K E Gibson; S Neill; E Tuma; J Meddings; L Mody
Journal:  J Hosp Infect       Date:  2018-07-26       Impact factor: 3.926

4.  Transurethral versus suprapubic catheter at robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective randomized trial with 1-year follow-up.

Authors:  A Martinschek; D Pfalzgraf; B Rafail; M Ritter; E Heinrich; L Trojan
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-09-04       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Postoperative patient comfort in suprapubic drainage versus transurethral catheterization following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Nina Harke; Michael Godes; Jawid Habibzada; Katarina Urbanova; Christian Wagner; Henrik Zecha; Mustapha Addali; Jorn H Witt
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-06-22       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Dorsal penile nerve block for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy catheter related pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Authors:  Aaron C Weinberg; Solomon L Woldu; Ari Bergman; Arindam Roychoudhury; Trushar Patel; William Berg; Christel Wambi; Ketan K Badani
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2014-04-07

7.  Suprapubic bladder drainage and epidural catheters following abdominal surgery-A risk for urinary tract infections?

Authors:  Johanna Wagner; Barbara Eiken; Imme Haubitz; Sven Lichthardt; Niels Matthes; Stefan Löb; Ingo Klein; Christoph-Thomas Germer; Armin Wiegering
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-01-23       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  [Quality of life for wearers of a suprapubic or transurethral bladder catheter as lifelong permanent care].

Authors:  A Wiedemann; C Gedding; M Heese; J Stein; A Manseck; R Kirschner-Hermanns; H Karstedt; A Schorn; A Wagner; V Moll; U Unger; A Eisenhardt; A Bannowsky; C Linné; S Wirz; E Brammen; H-J Heppner
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2021-10-04       Impact factor: 0.639

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.