Suprapubic versus urethral catheter drainage in robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: advancing systematic review quality

Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Transperineal Puncture: A Viable Alternative for Difficult Removal of an Indwelling Catheter in a Postrobot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Patient

Background: The inability to remove an indwelling urethral catheter in a postrobot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) patient constitutes a serious problem to the urologist. If the proper deflation of the catheter balloon is not observed, forcible extraction can lead to devastating consequences such as urethral disruption and subsequent stricture formation. Case Presentation: A 60-year-old male patient developed lower urinary-tract symptoms 20 months after robotic prostatectomy for early prostate cancer. Cystourethroscopy revealed a migrated Hemo-lok clip that was extracted near the anastomotic site, followed by insertion of an indwelling Foley catheter. Two weeks later, the patient accidentally pulled the catheter into the urethra. Several attempts were done to deflate the catheter, which failed. Subsequently, a transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided transperineal puncture was done to deflate the catheter balloon followed by effective catheter removal. Conclusion: TRUS-guided transperineal puncture (under local anesthesia) of an indwelling catheter balloon is a viable alternative for patients who have a history of RALP.

Suprapubic Versus Urethral Catheter for Urinary Drainage After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the evidence regarding the usage of suprapubic tube (SPT) versus indwelling urethral catheter (IUC) after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

RECENT FINDINGS

Available data on the use of SPT for urinary drainage after RARP is somewhat limited mostly because of the variations of study designs and non-standardized outcomes. Although it may provide some mild benefit in terms of catheter-related pain and discomfort, the benefit seems not to be clinically significant. The evidence in the literature so far does not support routine usage of SPT as the primary urinary drainage method after RARP. Further higher-quality studies that can show clinically significant advantages over IUC are still needed to justify its usage.