A B Blair1, A Dwarakanath2, A Mehta2,3, H Liang3, X Hui3, C Wyman4, J P P Ouanes4, H T Nguyen5,6. 1. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins Medical Institution, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins Medical Institution, Baltimore, MD, USA. hnguye51@jhmi.edu. 6. Comprehensive Hernia Center, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, 4940 Eastern Ave, Baltimore, MD, USA. hnguye51@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Inguinal hernia repair is a common general surgery procedure with low morbidity. However, postoperative urinary retention (PUR) occurs in up to 22% of patients, resulting in further extraneous treatments.This single institution series investigates whether patient comorbidities, surgical approaches, and anesthesia methods are associated with developing PUR after inguinal hernia repairs. METHODS: This is a single institution retrospective review of inguinal hernia from 2012 to 2015. PUR was defined as patients without a postoperative urinary catheter who subsequently required bladder decompression due to an inability to void. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were performed to quantify the associations between patient, surgical, and anesthetic factors with PUR. Stratification analysis was conducted at age of 50 years. RESULTS: 445 patients were included (42.9% laparoscopic and 57.1% open). Overall rate of PUR was 11.2% (12% laparoscopic, 10.6% open, and p = 0.64). In univariate analysis, PUR was significantly associated with patient age >50 and history of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Risk stratification for age >50 revealed in this cohort a 2.49 times increased PUR risk with lack of intraoperative bladder decompression (p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: At our institution, we found that patient age, history of BPH, and bilateral repair were associated with PUR after inguinal hernia repair. No association was found with PUR and laparoscopic vs open approach. Older males may be at higher risk without intraoperative bladder decompression, and therefore, catheter placement should be considered in this population, regardless of surgical approach.
PURPOSE:Inguinal hernia repair is a common general surgery procedure with low morbidity. However, postoperative urinary retention (PUR) occurs in up to 22% of patients, resulting in further extraneous treatments.This single institution series investigates whether patient comorbidities, surgical approaches, and anesthesia methods are associated with developing PUR after inguinal hernia repairs. METHODS: This is a single institution retrospective review of inguinal hernia from 2012 to 2015. PUR was defined as patients without a postoperative urinary catheter who subsequently required bladder decompression due to an inability to void. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were performed to quantify the associations between patient, surgical, and anesthetic factors with PUR. Stratification analysis was conducted at age of 50 years. RESULTS: 445 patients were included (42.9% laparoscopic and 57.1% open). Overall rate of PUR was 11.2% (12% laparoscopic, 10.6% open, and p = 0.64). In univariate analysis, PUR was significantly associated with patient age >50 and history of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Risk stratification for age >50 revealed in this cohort a 2.49 times increased PUR risk with lack of intraoperative bladder decompression (p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: At our institution, we found that patient age, history of BPH, and bilateral repair were associated with PUR after inguinal hernia repair. No association was found with PUR and laparoscopic vs open approach. Older males may be at higher risk without intraoperative bladder decompression, and therefore, catheter placement should be considered in this population, regardless of surgical approach.
Authors: R Bittner; M E Arregui; T Bisgaard; M Dudai; G S Ferzli; R J Fitzgibbons; R H Fortelny; U Klinge; F Kockerling; E Kuhry; J Kukleta; D Lomanto; M C Misra; A Montgomery; S Morales-Conde; W Reinpold; J Rosenberg; S Sauerland; C Schug-Pass; K Singh; M Timoney; D Weyhe; P Chowbey Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-07-13 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Jigar A Patel; Andrew S Kaufman; Robin S Howard; Carlos J Rodriguez; Elliot M Jessie Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-01-01 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Merritt Denham; Kara Donovan; Nicole Wetoska; Kristine Kuchta; JoAnn Carbray; John G Linn; Woody Denham; Stephen P Haggerty; Raymond Joehl; Michael Ujiki Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-11-07 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Yung Lee; Tyler McKechnie; Jeremy E Springer; Aristithes G Doumouras; Dennis Hong; Cagla Eskicioglu Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2019-11-09 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Stefanie M Croghan; Christina A Fleming; Helen M Mohan; Deena Harji; Jarlath C Bolger; Jessie A Elliott; Michael Boland; Peter E Lonergan; Patrick Dillon; David M Quinlan; Des C Winter Journal: Int J Surg Protoc Date: 2021-04-23