OBJECTIVE: To summarize the management of an intravenous urologic catheter. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 2 patients in our hospital and all relevant literature published in English between 1980 and 2012. The treatment processes of our patients are described in detail. All patients (including those reported in the literature) are characterized by age, sex, relevant history, operation, location, method of retrieval, and prognosis. RESULTS: The patients were a median age of 48.5 years (range, 29-63 years). Female patients were younger (median age, 41 vs 54 years) and had greater percentage of migration (70% vs 30%) than male patients. Most patients (90%) had a history of chronic inflammation or operation on the affected kidney. All migrations (3 right and 7 left) occurred during or after endourologic procedures. Most were managed with bed rest, antibiotics, and thromboprophylaxis, and the catheters were eventually retrieved using noninvasive methods. Removal in 1 patient required open surgery. CONCLUSION: Some elements, such as relevant history, may be a risk factor for intravenous migration of a urologic catheter. Most of these patients could be managed uneventfully by minimally invasive approaches.
OBJECTIVE: To summarize the management of an intravenous urologic catheter. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 2 patients in our hospital and all relevant literature published in English between 1980 and 2012. The treatment processes of our patients are described in detail. All patients (including those reported in the literature) are characterized by age, sex, relevant history, operation, location, method of retrieval, and prognosis. RESULTS: The patients were a median age of 48.5 years (range, 29-63 years). Female patients were younger (median age, 41 vs 54 years) and had greater percentage of migration (70% vs 30%) than male patients. Most patients (90%) had a history of chronic inflammation or operation on the affected kidney. All migrations (3 right and 7 left) occurred during or after endourologic procedures. Most were managed with bed rest, antibiotics, and thromboprophylaxis, and the catheters were eventually retrieved using noninvasive methods. Removal in 1 patient required open surgery. CONCLUSION: Some elements, such as relevant history, may be a risk factor for intravenous migration of a urologic catheter. Most of these patients could be managed uneventfully by minimally invasive approaches.