A prospective study of early removal of the urethral catheter after colorectal surgery in patients having epidural analgesia as part of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programme

被引:40
作者
Stubbs, B. M. [1 ]
Badcock, K. J. M. [1 ]
Hyams, C. [1 ]
Rizal, F. E. [1 ]
Warren, S. [1 ]
Francis, D. [1 ]
机构
[1] Barnet & Chase Farm Hosp Trust, Chase Farm Hosp, Dept Colorectal Surg, Enfield EN2 8JL, Middx, England
关键词
Epidural catheter; urinary retention; ERAS; colorectal; POSTOPERATIVE PAIN MANAGEMENT; URINARY RETENTION; COLONIC RESECTION; SURGICAL-PATIENTS; DRAINAGE; CARE; TRIAL;
D O I
10.1111/codi.12124
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Aim Early removal of the urethral catheters is part of the enhanced postoperative recovery programme (ERAS). The effect of epidural anaesthesia on urinary retention was investigated in patients after colorectal resection. Method A prospective cohort study of all patients having colorectal surgery within an ERAS programme that included insertion of an epidural catheter over the last 5years. Results Two-hundred and ten patients had an epidural and a urethral catheter postoperatively. The duration of catheterization was not recorded in one patient who was therefore excluded from the study. One-hundred and eighteen patients had a trial without catheter (TWOC) prior to stopping the epidural (early TWOC). Ninety-one patients had TWOC after the epidural was stopped (late TWOC). Sixteen (7.6%) patients went into urinary retention (14 early TWOC and two late TWOC). The rate of urinary retention in the early TWOC group was significantly higher than that in the late TWOC group (11.9% vs 2.2%; 2, P=0.009). Those who underwent a laparoscopic resection were significantly more likely to have undergone an early TWOC (2, P=0.001); however, there was no difference in retention rates between open and laparoscopic surgery (2, P=0.402). Pelvic surgery was not significantly associated with an increased risk of postoperative urinary retention (2, P=0.627). Male sex was not significantly associated with urinary retention (2, P=0.087). In the early TWOC group 86% had the catheter removed within 24hours of surgery. Conclusion Early TWOC with epidural analgesia running significantly increases the risk of urinary retention; however, it was still successful in 88% of patients.
引用
收藏
页码:733 / 736
页数:4
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]   The surgical risk of suprapubic catheter insertion and long-term seduelae [J].
Ahluwalia, R. S. ;
Johal, N. ;
Kouriefs, C. ;
Kooiman, G. ;
Montgomery, Bruce S. I. ;
Plail, R. O. .
ANNALS OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS OF ENGLAND, 2006, 88 (02) :210-213
[2]  
[Anonymous], COCHRANE DATABASE SY
[3]   Is urinary drainage necessary during continuous epidural analgesia after colonic resection? [J].
Basse, L ;
Werner, M ;
Kehlet, H .
REGIONAL ANESTHESIA AND PAIN MEDICINE, 2000, 25 (05) :498-501
[4]  
Benoist S, 1999, SURGERY, V125, P135, DOI 10.1016/S0039-6060(99)70256-4
[5]   The effect of intraoperative thoracic epidural anesthesia and postoperative analgesia on bowel function after colorectal surgery - A prospective, randomized trial [J].
Carli, F ;
Trudel, JL ;
Belliveau, P .
DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2001, 44 (08) :1083-1089
[6]   Tolerability of acute postoperative pain management: nausea, vomiting, sedation, pruritis, and urinary retention. Evidence from published data [J].
Dolin, SJ ;
Cashman, JN .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2005, 95 (05) :584-591
[7]  
Enhanced Recovery Partnership Programme, 2010, DEL ENH REC HELP PAT
[8]   Enhanced recovery after surgery: A consensus review of clinical care for patients undergoing colonic resection [J].
Fearon, KCH ;
Ljungqvist, O ;
Von Meyenfeldt, M ;
Revhaug, A ;
Dejong, CHC ;
Lassen, K ;
Nygren, J ;
Hausel, J ;
Soop, M ;
Andersen, J ;
Kehlet, H .
CLINICAL NUTRITION, 2005, 24 (03) :466-477
[9]   CATHETER-ASSOCIATED URINARY-TRACT INFECTIONS IN SURGICAL PATIENTS - A CONTROLLED-STUDY ON THE EXCESS MORBIDITY AND COSTS [J].
GIVENS, CD ;
WENZEL, RP .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1980, 124 (05) :646-648
[10]   Suprapubic catheterization at laparotomy [J].
Johnson, C. D. .
DIGESTIVE SURGERY, 2006, 23 (5-6) :281-282