Si Hyun Kim1, Hee Jo Yang1, Doo Sang Kim1, Chang Ho Lee1, Youn Soo Jeon1, Ki Hong Kim2. 1. Department of Urology, Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, 31 Suncheonhyang 6-gil, Dongnam-gu, Cheonan, 31151, Korea. 2. Department of Urology, Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, 31 Suncheonhyang 6-gil, Dongnam-gu, Cheonan, 31151, Korea. urokim@schmc.ac.kr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several approaches for urethral catheterization after the failure of initial urethral catheterization have been introduced. However, standard procedures regarding what should be done after failed conventional urethral catheterization have been not established. Therefore, we investigated the clinical efficacy of retrograde urethrography (RGU)-assisted urethral catheterization after failed conventional urethral catheterization. METHODS: Between July 2015 and July 2018, 136 patients who underwent RGU-assisted urethral catheterization after failed conventional urethral catheterization were included in this retrospective study. Patients' clinical data, such as age, catheterization site, and previous history of urologic operations, were collected and assessed via chart review. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictive factors for the failure of this procedure. RESULTS: Of the 136 patients, 94 (69.1%) experienced successful RGU-assisted urethral catheterization. Having a previous history of urologic operations, such as urethrotomy and transurethral prostatectomy, was identified as an independent predictive factor for the failure of RGU-assisted urethral catheterization (odds ratio = 9.453, 95% confidence interval = 2.703-33.063, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: RGU-assisted urethral catheterization can be one of the modalities for providing successful catheterization after failed conventional urethral catheterization. We believe that RGU-assisted urethral catheterization can be an effective procedure if patients have no previous history of urologic operations, such as urethrotomy and transurethral prostatectomy. Trial registration Soonchunhyang university institutional review board approval (No. 2018-08-021).
BACKGROUND: Several approaches for urethral catheterization after the failure of initial urethral catheterization have been introduced. However, standard procedures regarding what should be done after failed conventional urethral catheterization have been not established. Therefore, we investigated the clinical efficacy of retrograde urethrography (RGU)-assisted urethral catheterization after failed conventional urethral catheterization. METHODS: Between July 2015 and July 2018, 136 patients who underwent RGU-assisted urethral catheterization after failed conventional urethral catheterization were included in this retrospective study. Patients' clinical data, such as age, catheterization site, and previous history of urologic operations, were collected and assessed via chart review. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictive factors for the failure of this procedure. RESULTS: Of the 136 patients, 94 (69.1%) experienced successful RGU-assisted urethral catheterization. Having a previous history of urologic operations, such as urethrotomy and transurethral prostatectomy, was identified as an independent predictive factor for the failure of RGU-assisted urethral catheterization (odds ratio = 9.453, 95% confidence interval = 2.703-33.063, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:RGU-assisted urethral catheterization can be one of the modalities for providing successful catheterization after failed conventional urethral catheterization. We believe that RGU-assisted urethral catheterization can be an effective procedure if patients have no previous history of urologic operations, such as urethrotomy and transurethral prostatectomy. Trial registration Soonchunhyang university institutional review board approval (No. 2018-08-021).
Authors: N F Davis; M R Quinlan; N R Bhatt; C Browne; E MacCraith; R Manecksha; M T Walsh; J A Thornhill; D Mulvin Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 7.450