Optimal duration of urinary catheterization after thoracotomy in patients under postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia

Strategies for the removal of short-term indwelling urethral catheters in adults

BACKGROUND

Urinary catheterisation is a common procedure, with approximately 15% to 25% of all people admitted to hospital receiving short-term (14 days or less) indwelling urethral catheterisation at some point during their care. However, the use of urinary catheters is associated with an increased risk of developing urinary tract infection. Catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) is one of the most common hospital-acquired infections. It is estimated that around 20% of hospital-acquired bacteraemias arise from the urinary tract and are associated with mortality of around 10%. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005 and last published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of strategies for removing short-term (14 days or less) indwelling catheters in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 17 March 2020), and reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that evaluated the effectiveness of practices undertaken for the removal of short-term indwelling urethral catheters in adults for any reason in any setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors performed abstract and full-text screening of all relevant articles. At least two review authors independently performed risk of bias assessment, data abstraction and GRADE assessment.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 99 trials involving 12,241 participants. We judged the majority of trials to be at low or unclear risk of selection and detection bias, with a high risk of performance bias. We also deemed most trials to be at low risk of attrition and reporting bias. None of the trials reported on quality of life. The majority of participants across the trials had undergone some form of surgical procedure. Thirteen trials involving 1506 participants compared the removal of short-term indwelling urethral catheters at one time of day (early morning removal group between 6 am to 7 am) versus another (late night removal group between 10 pm to midnight). Catheter removal late at night may slightly reduce the risk of requiring recatheterisation compared with early morning (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.96; 10 RCTs, 1920 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if there is any difference between early morning and late night removal in the risk of developing symptomatic CAUTI (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.63; 1 RCT, 41 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether the time of day makes a difference to the risk of dysuria (RR 2.20; 95% CI 0.70 to 6.86; 1 RCT, 170 participants; low-certainty evidence). Sixty-eight trials involving 9247 participants compared shorter versus longer durations of catheterisation. Shorter durations may increase the risk of requiring recatheterisation compared with longer durations (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.41; 44 trials, 5870 participants; low-certainty evidence), but probably reduce the risk of symptomatic CAUTI (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.61; 41 RCTs, 5759 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce the risk of dysuria (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.88; 7 RCTs; 1398 participants; low-certainty evidence). Seven trials involving 714 participants compared policies of clamping catheters versus free drainage. There may be little to no difference between clamping and free drainage in terms of the risk of requiring recatheterisation (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.21; 5 RCTs; 569 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if there is any difference in the risk of symptomatic CAUTI (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.63; 2 RCTs, 267 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or dysuria (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.54; 1 trial, 79 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Three trials involving 402 participants compared the use of prophylactic alpha blockers versus no intervention or placebo. We are uncertain if prophylactic alpha blockers before catheter removal has any effect on the risk of requiring recatheterisation (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.42; 2 RCTs, 184 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or risk of symptomatic CAUTI (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.06; 1 trial, 94 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included trials investigating prophylactic alpha blockers reported the number of participants with dysuria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence to suggest the removal of indwelling urethral catheters late at night rather than early in the morning may reduce the number of people who require recatheterisation. It appears that catheter removal after shorter compared to longer durations probably reduces the risk of symptomatic CAUTI and may reduce the risk of dysuria. However, it may lead to more people requiring recatheterisation. The other evidence relating to the risk of symptomatic CAUTI and dysuria is too uncertain to allow us to draw any conclusions. Due to the low certainty of the majority of the evidence presented here, the results of further research are likely to change our findings and to have a further impact on clinical practice. This systematic review has highlighted the need for a standardised set of core outcomes, which should be measured and reported by all future trials comparing strategies for the removal of short-term urinary catheters. Future trials should also study the effects of short-term indwelling urethral catheter removal on non-surgical patients.

A Novel Tubeless Urinary Catheter Protocol Enhanced Recovery After Minimally Invasive Lung Surgery

Objectives: Although previous studies have shown the feasibility of non-intubated techniques, it is unknown whether avoiding urinary catheters can enhance recovery. This study aimed to determine whether the tubeless urinary catheter protocol is feasible and beneficial for minimally invasive lung surgery.

Methods: Patients were randomized to the control group, completely tubeless group, and partially tubeless group. A propensity score–matched (PSM) analysis was performed to balance the non-random baseline characteristics. Complications and postoperative recovery were compared. Regression analysis was performed to identify the independent predictors of complications. A nomogram for predicting the risk of non-automatic micturition was constructed and internally validated.

Results: One hundred fifty-nine patients were enrolled. The incidence rates of urinary irritation and urinary tract infection (UTI) were significantly lower in the tubeless groups (74.4 vs. 39.5%, p < 0.001; 28.2 vs. 8.6%, p = 0.001, respectively). The tubeless group had a higher proportion of 0-degree discomfort (81.5 vs. 30.8%, p = 0.001) and shorter duration of postoperative hospital stay than the control group (4.59 vs. 5.53 days, p < 0.001). No difference was observed in terms of urination retention and urinary incontinence between the tubeless group and the control group. After PSM, the advantages of the tubeless group still existed, and comparing to the partially tubeless group, the completely tubeless group was of even less UTI and more 0-degree discomfort (18.5 vs. 0.0%, p = 0.019; 96.3 vs. 59.3%, p = 0.002). The tubeless protocol was the only independent protective factor of urinary complications. A nomogram was constructed and showed good predictive ability.

Conclusions: The tubeless catheterization protocol led to fewer complications, better compliance, and shorter hospital length of stay. The advantages were more significant with the completely tubeless protocol. The utility of our nomogram can assist clinicians in avoiding risks in performing the tubeless protocol.

Recommendations from the Italian intersociety consensus on Perioperative Anesthesa Care in Thoracic surgery (PACTS) part 2: intraoperative and postoperative care

Introduction

Anesthetic care in patients undergoing thoracic surgery presents specific challenges that require a multidisciplinary approach to management. There remains a need for standardized, evidence-based, continuously updated guidelines for perioperative care in these patients.

Methods

A multidisciplinary expert group, the Perioperative Anesthesia in Thoracic Surgery (PACTS) group, was established to develop recommendations for anesthesia practice in patients undergoing elective lung resection for lung cancer. The project addressed three key areas: preoperative patient assessment and preparation, intraoperative management (surgical and anesthesiologic care), and postoperative care and discharge. A series of clinical questions was developed, and literature searches were performed to inform discussions around these areas, leading to the development of 69 recommendations. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were graded using the United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria.

Results

Recommendations for intraoperative care focus on airway management, and monitoring of vital signs, hemodynamics, blood gases, neuromuscular blockade, and depth of anesthesia. Recommendations for postoperative care focus on the provision of multimodal analgesia, intensive care unit (ICU) care, and specific measures such as chest drainage, mobilization, noninvasive ventilation, and atrial fibrillation prophylaxis.

Conclusions

These recommendations should help clinicians to improve intraoperative and postoperative management, and thereby achieve better postoperative outcomes in thoracic surgery patients. Further refinement of the recommendations can be anticipated as the literature continues to evolve.

Enhanced recovery for esophagectomy: a systematic review and evidence-based guidelines

OBJECTIVE

This article aims to provide the first systematic review of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs for esophagectomy and generate guidelines.

BACKGROUND

ERAS programs use multimodal approaches to reduce complications and accelerate recovery. Although ERAS is well established in colorectal surgery, experience after esophagectomy has been minimal. However, esophagectomy remains an extremely high-risk operation, commonly performed in patients with significant comorbidities. Consequently, ERAS may have a significant role to play in improving outcomes. No guidelines or reviews have been published in esophagectomy.

METHODS

We undertook a systematic review of the PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases in July 2012. The literature was searched for descriptions of ERAS in esophagectomy. Components of successful ERAS programs were determined, and when not directly available for esophagectomy, extrapolation from related evidence was made. Graded recommendations for each component were then generated.

RESULTS

Six retrospective studies have assessed ERAS for esophagectomy, demonstrating favorable morbidity, mortality, and length of stay. Methodological quality is, however, low. Overall, there is little direct evidence for components of ERAS, with much derived from nonesophageal thoracoabdominal surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS in principle seems logical and safe for esophagectomy. However, the underlying evidence is poor and lacking. Despite this, a number of recommendations for practice and research can be made.

Predictors of postoperative urinary retention after colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

National quality initiatives have mandated the earlier removal of urinary catheters after surgery to decrease urinary tract infection rates. A potential unintended consequence is an increased postoperative urinary retention rate.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the incidence and risk factors for postoperative urinary retention after colorectal surgery.

DESIGN

This was a prospective observational study.

SETTINGS

A colorectal unit within a single institution was the setting for this study.

PATIENTS

Adults undergoing elective colorectal operations were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Urinary catheters were removed on postoperative day 1 for patients undergoing abdominal operations, and on day 3 for patients undergoing pelvic operations. Postvoid residual and retention volumes were measured.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were urinary retention and urinary tract infection.

RESULTS

The overall urinary retention rate was 22.4% (22.8% in the abdominal group, 21.9% in the pelvic group) and was associated with longer operative time and increased perioperative fluid administration. Mean operative time for those with retention was 2.8 hours and, for those without retention, the mean operative time 2.2 hours (abdominal group 2 hours vs 1.4 hours, pelvic group 3.9 hours vs 3.1 hours, p ≤ 0.02). Patients with retention received a mean of 2.7L during the operation, whereas patients without retention received 1.8L (abdominal group 1.9L vs 1.4L, pelvic group 3.6L vs 2.2L, p < 0.01). In the abdominal group, patients with and without retention also received different fluid volumes on postoperative days 1 (2.2L vs 1.7L, p = 0.004) and 2 (1.6L vs 1L, p = 0.05). Laparoscopic abdominal group had a 40% retention rate in comparison with 12% in the open abdominal group (p = 0.004). Age, sex, preoperative radiation therapy, preoperative prostatism, preoperative diagnosis, and level of anastomosis were not associated with retention. The urinary tract infection rate was 4.9%.

LIMITATION

The lack of documentation of preoperative urinary function was a limitation of this study.

CONCLUSIONS

The practice of earlier urinary catheter removal must be balanced with operative time and fluid volume to avoid high urinary retention rates. Also important is increased vigilance for the early detection of retention.

Influence of patient-controlled epidural analgesia versus patient-controlled intravenous analgesia on postoperative pain control and recovery after gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) has not been widely used after gastrectomy, although, in other abdominal surgery, it benefits patients more than patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA). We attempted to determine the effect of PCEA compared with PCIA on postoperative pain control and recovery after gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

METHODS

A randomized controlled clinical trial that included patients undergoing D2 radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer was conducted for this study. Patients were randomized to a morphine-bupivacaine PCEA group and a morphine PCIA group. Postoperative outcomes such as pain, fasting blood glucose (FBG), time to first passage of flatus, complications, and time staying in hospital after surgery were compared with an intention-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

Between March 2010 and October 2010, 67 patients were randomized and 60 were evaluated. The PCEA group showed lower pain scores both at rest and on coughing after the operation (P < 0.05). FBG after the operation was significantly lower in the PCEA group than that in the PCIA group (P < 0.05). Time to first passage of flatus after surgery was shorter in the PCEA group (P < 0.05), while there were no significant differences regarding the incidence of complications between the two groups in terms of the clinical records. The length of hospital stay in the PCEA group was 10.7 ± 1.7 days, which was significantly shorter than that in the PCIA group (11.9 ± 1.8 days, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

After gastrectomy for gastric cancer, PCEA, compared with PCIA, offered safer pain relief with superior pain control and resulted in a lower stress response and a quicker return of bowel activity.