Can We Trust the Math? Correlation of Objective Postvoid Residual With Calculated Subtraction Postvoid Residual.
Journal
Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery
ISSN: 2154-4212
Titre abrégé: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101528690
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 01 2022
01 01 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
23
4
2021
medline:
3
2
2022
entrez:
22
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of the study was to determine the accuracy of postvoid residual (PVR) by subtraction as compared with objective measurement by bladder scan or catheterization. This is a secondary analysis of postoperative patients who underwent avoiding trial by retrograde bladder instillation. Fill volume, spontaneous voided volume, and PVR were objectively measured; PVR was also calculated. Pearson correlation compared PVR by subtraction versus objective measurement. We then defined postoperative urinary retention (POUR) at 3 different PVR values (100 mL, 150 mL, and 200 mL) to compare the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of subtraction for detecting urinary retention at these 3 thresholds. Data were available for 155 patients after urogynecologic surgery. Median PVR by objective measurement was 46 mL (interquartile range = 11-146 mL). Median calculated PVR by subtraction was 10 mL (interquartile range = 0-100 mL). Objective measure and subtraction PVR values were strongly correlated (Pearson coefficient = 0.78, P < 0.001). Using a threshold of 200 mL to define POUR resulted in the highest negative predictive value and the lowest absolute number of both false negatives and false positives. Even using this threshold, 11 (48%) of 23 women with POUR by measurement were misclassified as not having POUR when ascertained by subtraction. Although subtraction PVR correlates well with objective PVR measurement, almost half of women with a PVR volume of greater than 200 mL by objective measurement are miscategorized as voiding normally by subtraction PVR. Based on these findings, reliance on objective PVR measurement in postoperative patients is preferable to subtraction PVR.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33886511
doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000001062
pii: 01436319-900000000-99242
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
45-48Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 American Urogynecologic Society. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared they have no conflicts of interest.
Références
Gehrich A, Stany MP, Fischer JR, et al. Establishing a mean postvoid residual volume in asymptomatic perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110(4):827–832.
Geller EJ. Prevention and management of postoperative urinary retention after urogynecologic surgery. Int J Womens Health 2014;6:829–838.
Theisen JG, Deveneau NE, Agrawal A, et al. The accuracy of portable ultrasound bladder scanner measurements of postvoid residual volume in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2019;25(5):388–391.
Drewry A, Sergeant A, Giles D, et al. Can we trust the math: a quality assurance project evaluating the validity of postvoid residual estimation by subtraction. Presented at AUGS PFD Week. Chicago, IL; October 12, 2018.
Kesty K, Edenfield A, Castro D, et al. Subjective versus objective determination of bladder emptying following urogynecological surgery: “do you feel that you completely emptied your bladder?”Int Urogynecol J 2020;31(9):1899–1905.
Richter HE, Albo ME, Zyczynski HM, et al. Retropubic versus transobturator midurethral slings for stress incontinence. N Engl J Med 2010;362(22):2066–2076.
Partoll LM. Efficacy of tension-free vaginal tape with other pelvic reconstructive surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186(6):1292–1295.
Smithling KR, Mwesigwa PJ, Siddiquie MM, et al. Risk factors for incomplete bladder emptying after prolapse repairs and slings. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2020;26(5):314–319.