Résumé
Abstract Objective To evaluate the differences between bladder emptying options (permanent catheterization and intermittent bladder emptying/spontaneous urination) regarding the effects on labor length, need of operative vaginal deliveries, and cesarean section rate. Data Sources The search was conducted in MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Selection of Studies The survey returned 964 studies. A total of 719 studies were evaluated by title and abstract, of which 4 were selected for inclusion. Data Collection All references were inserted in the Rayyan QCRI tool (Rayyan Systems Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA). The full text of the selected articles was obtained so we could later decide whether or not to include them in this systematic review. Data Synthesis No differences were found in the number of instrumented deliveries or in cesarean section rate between groups. Conclusions After evaluating the studies performed on the topic, we concluded that there is no clear advantage to either method, although continuous catheterization was associated with a greater occurrence of eutocic births. In the remaining outcomes, there were no differences between catheterization types.
Resumo Objetivo Avaliar as diferenças entre as opções de esvaziamento vesical (cateterismo permanente e esvaziamento vesical intermitente/micção espontânea) em relação aos efeitos na duração do trabalho de parto, necessidade de partos vaginais operatórios e taxa de cesárea. Fontes de Dados A pesquisa foi realizada nas bases de dados MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, e The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Seleção de Estudos A pesquisa retornou 964 estudos. Um total de 719 estudos foram avaliados por título e resumo, dos quais 4 foram selecionados para inclusão. Coleta de Dados Todas as referências foram inseridas na ferramenta Rayyan QCRI (Rayyan Systems Inc., Cambridge, MA, EUA). O texto completo dos artigos selecionados foi obtido para posterior decisão de incluí-los nesta revisão sistemática. Síntese dos Dados Não foram encontradas diferenças no número de partos instrumentados ou na taxa de cesariana entre os grupos. Conclusões Após avaliação dos estudos realizados sobre o tema, concluímos que não hávantagem clara de qualquer um dos métodos, embora o cateterismo contínuo tenha sido associado à maior ocorrência de partos eutócicos. Nos demais desfechos, não houve diferenças entre os tipos de cateterismo.
Sujets)
Humains , Femelle , Grossesse , Travail obstétrical , Césarienne , Cathétérisme , Accouchement (procédure) , ParturitionRésumé
PURPOSE: Transurethral catheterization is restricted to fewer procedures and a limited time with an increase in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs or fast-track surgical procedures. We aim to evaluate the feasibility of immediate removal of transurethral catheter in hemodymically stable patients undergoing radical gastrectomy prior to a prospective randomized control trial. METHODS: A total 63 gastric cancer patients undergoing elective radical gastrectomy were enrolled in a feasibility study. Patients were randomized to either the active group (immediate removal group) or control group (removal at postoperative day 1 group) with blinding, and 58 patients were finally included. Amount of residual and voiding urine, operative factors (operation time, infused fluid, urine output, and blood loss), first voiding discomfort level, urinary discomfort score, and urine analysis were measured. RESULTS: In the active group, the self-voiding volume and residual urine volume measured nearly equal (256 ml vs 244 ml) at 16 hours after transurethral catheter removal. The discomfort score of first self-voiding was lower in active group (P=0.041). Regarding urinary discomfort at postoperative day 2 and the urine analysis at postoperative day 5, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Immediate removal of the transurethral catheter could be feasible and safe in hemodynamically stable patients undergoing radical gastrectomy in aspects of ERAS programs. A prospective randomized controlled trial would be scheduled for acceptable evidence.