4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Prophylactic ureteric catheters in laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Journal

TECHNIQUES IN COLOPROCTOLOGY
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages 45-50

Publisher

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-008-0397-7

Keywords

Ureteric catheter; Laparoscopic colorectal surgery; Ureteric injury; Conversion

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of ureteric catheter placement in laparoscopic colorectal surgery and to assess the morbidity related to this procedure. Methods Between 1994 and 2001, 313 elective laparoscopic colorectal surgeries were performed. Patients with and without ureteric catheters were retrospectively analyzed. Results Catheter placement was attempted in 149 patients (catheter group) and was not attempted in 164 (controls). There were no significant differences between groups in the number of patients with prior colorectal resection (p=0.286) or other abdominal surgery (p=0.074). Crohn's disease and diverticulitis were more common in the catheter group than among controls (p<0.001). Concomitant intra-abdominal fistula or abscess was present in 29 patients (19.5%) in the catheter group vs. 14 (8.5%) in the control group (p=0.005). The duration of surgery was longer in the catheter group (p=0.001). There were no significant differences in conversion, duration of bladder catheter placement, or length of hospital stay. Urinary tract infection occurred in 3 patients (2.0%) in the catheter group and 7 (4.3%) in the control group (p=0.257) and urinary retention occurred in 3 patients (2.0%) and 11 patients (6.7%), respectively (p=0.045). No intraoperative ureteric injuries occurred in either group. Conclusion Ureteric catheter placement was successful in most cases and was not associated with intraoperative injuries. The increased length of surgery in patients with ureteric catheter placement may attest to the increased severity of pathology in these patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available