Wide Variation in Post-Void Residual Management after Urogynecologic Surgery: A Survey of Urogynecologists' Practices.
pelvic organ prolapse surgery
post-void residual
postoperative assessment
postoperative urinary retention
survey
voiding dysfunction
voiding trial
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 May 2021
01 May 2021
Historique:
received:
13
03
2021
revised:
25
04
2021
accepted:
27
04
2021
entrez:
2
6
2021
pubmed:
3
6
2021
medline:
3
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To date there is no standardized regimen or evidence-based practical guideline concerning post-void residual (PVR) measurement after urogynecologic surgeries. This survey aimed to evaluate current practice patterns and the approach taken among urogynecologists surrounding PVR measurement. An online survey was sent to members of several urogynecologic societies assessing pre- and postoperative management of patients undergoing urogynecologic surgery. A total of 204 urogynecologists from 21 countries participated in the survey. The vast majority of urogynecologists perform some kind of voiding trial to assess voiding function postoperatively. The cut-off values to perform catheterization, the methods of measurement, and the number of successfully passed voiding showed strong differences. Only 34.4% of the respondents consider routine PVR measurement after urogynecologic surgery to be evidence-based. PVR measurement after urogynecologic surgeries is widely performed and if pathological, it almost always provokes invasive treatment. However, there is a wide variation of implemented strategies, methods, and cut-off values. Scientific societies are challenged to devise a standardized regimen based on evidence for the management of urinary retention after urogynecologic surgery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34062749
pii: jcm10091946
doi: 10.3390/jcm10091946
pmc: PMC8125299
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Minerva Ginecol. 2009 Apr;61(2):167-72
pubmed: 19255563
BJOG. 2004 Aug;111(8):828-30
pubmed: 15270931
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 May;212(5):597.e1-9
pubmed: 25434837
Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Nov;134(5):1037-1045
pubmed: 31599826
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Dec;197(6):627.e1-4
pubmed: 18060956
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2021 Feb 1;27(2):e256-e260
pubmed: 31157716
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021 Feb;28(2):351-357
pubmed: 32652242
Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Nov;116(5):1096-100
pubmed: 20966694
Br J Surg. 1988 Nov;75(11):1141-3
pubmed: 3208051
Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Sep;118(3):637-642
pubmed: 21860294
Int Urogynecol J. 2020 Sep;31(9):1899-1905
pubmed: 31989202
Clin Infect Dis. 2010 Mar 1;50(5):625-63
pubmed: 20175247
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Jun;186(6):1292-5; discussion 1295-8
pubmed: 12066111
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Jul;187(1):49-52
pubmed: 12114887
J Hosp Med. 2018 May 30;13(5):
pubmed: 29813140
Int Urogynecol J. 2010 Dec;21(12):1491-8
pubmed: 20585756
Neurourol Urodyn. 2012 Mar;31(3):317-21
pubmed: 22419355
Int Urogynecol J. 2010 Jan;21(1):5-26
pubmed: 19937315
BJU Int. 2000 Jan;85(2):186-201
pubmed: 10671867
Ann Anat. 2004 Feb;186(1):55-9
pubmed: 14994912
Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Nov;134(5):1027-1036
pubmed: 31599827
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Jan;99(2):e18710
pubmed: 31914080
J Urol. 2010 Oct;184(4):1408-12
pubmed: 20727543
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021 Jan 23;:
pubmed: 33497726
Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Jun;123(6):1201-1206
pubmed: 24807341
Int J Womens Health. 2014 Aug 28;6:829-38
pubmed: 25210477
Int Urogynecol J. 2018 Aug;29(8):1203-1212
pubmed: 29600401
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2018 Mar/Apr;24(2):188-192
pubmed: 29300254