A meta-analysis comparing suprapubic and transurethral catheterization for bladder drainage after abdominal surgery
Article first published online: 27 JUN 2006
Copyright © 2006 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
British Journal of Surgery
Volume 93, Issue 9, pages 1038–1044, September 2006
How to Cite
McPhail, M. J. W., Abu-Hilal, M. and Johnson, C. D. (2006), A meta-analysis comparing suprapubic and transurethral catheterization for bladder drainage after abdominal surgery. Br J Surg, 93: 1038–1044. doi: 10.1002/bjs.5424
- Issue published online: 17 AUG 2006
- Article first published online: 27 JUN 2006
- Manuscript Accepted: 7 JUN 2006
Although bladder drainage is widely used for general surgical patients undergoing laparotomy, there is little consensus on whether suprapubic or transurethral catheterization is better.
A systematic database search was undertaken to find all studies of suprapubic catheterization. Randomized controlled trials were identified for inclusion. Endpoints for analysis were bacteriuria, patient satisfaction and recatheterization rates. A meta-analysis was performed using fixed-effect or random-effect models as appropriate, depending on heterogeneity.
After abdominal surgery, transurethral catheterization is associated with significant bacteriuria (relative risk (RR) = 2·02, P < 0·001, 95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 1·34 to 3·04) and pain or discomfort (RR = 2·94, P = 0·004, 95 per cent c.i. 1·41 to 6·14). Recatheterization rates using the transurethral method were not increased significantly (RR = 1·97, P = 0·213, 95 per cent c.i. 0·68 to 5·74) with heterogeneity between studies.
The suprapubic route for bladder drainage in general surgery is more acceptable to patients and reduces microbiological morbidity. Copyright © 2006 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.