Timing of Trial of Void After Radical Hysterectomy: Long-Term Urinary Outcomes at Two Academic Tertiary Care Institutions.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Many patients develop bladder symptoms after radical hysterectomy. This study compared urinary outcomes following radical hysterectomy based on trial of void (TOV) timing (pre-discharge TOV versus post-discharge TOV). METHODS: A retrospective non-inferiority study of patients at two academic tertiary referral centers who underwent radical hysterectomy between January 2010 and January 2020 was carried out. Patients were stratified according to timing of postoperative TOV: either pre-discharge or post-discharge from the hospital. Short-term urinary outcomes (including passing TOV, representation with retention) and long-term de novo urinary dysfunction (defined as irritative voiding symptoms, urgency, frequency, nocturia, stress or urgency incontinence, neurogenic bladder, and/or urinary retention) were extracted from the medical record. We hypothesized that the proportion of patients who failed pre-discharge TOV would be within a 15% non-inferiority margin of post-discharge TOV. RESULTS: A total of 198 patients underwent radical hysterectomy for cervical (118 out of 198; 59.6%), uterine (36 out of 198; 18.2%), and ovarian (29 out of 198; 14.6%) cancer. One hundred and nineteen patients (119 out of 198, 60.1%) underwent pre-discharge TOV, of whom 14 out of 119 (11.8%) failed. Of the post-discharge TOV patients (79 out of 198, 39.9%), 5 out of 79 (6.3%) failed. The proportion of patients who failed a pre-discharge TOV was within the non-inferiority margin (5.4% difference, p = 0.23). A greater proportion of patients in the post-discharge TOV group developed long-term de novo urinary dysfunction (27.2% difference, p = 0.005). Median time to diagnosis of de novo urinary dysfunction was 0.5 years (range 0-9) in the pre-discharge TOV group versus 1.0 year (range 0-6) in the post-discharge TOV group (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, pre-discharge TOV had non-inferior short-term outcomes and improved long-term outcomes.

Multidisciplinary Development and Implementation of a Trial of Void Algorithm to Standardize and Reduce Indwelling Urethral Catheter Use.

INTRODUCTION: Prolonged indwelling catheter use is a known risk factor for catheter-associated UTIs (CAUTIs). We sought to reduce catheter use by creating and implementing a trial of void (TOV) algorithm to standardize indwelling Foley catheter removal in surgical patients. METHODS: We partnered with the Departments of General Surgery and Nursing to develop an evidence-based TOV algorithm for a step-down unit at a large urban teaching hospital. Our cohort included patients treated with intra-abdominal, thoracic, vascular, urologic, and gynecologic surgeries. The primary outcome was mean cumulative indwelling urethral catheter patient-days. For example, if 2 patients had catheters for 3 and 7 days, respectively, then cumulative catheter days would be 10. We analyzed changes in catheter use 90 days before and after algorithm implementation. RESULTS: The mean number of hospitalized patient-days before and after algorithm introduction did not differ (32.2 vs 32.0, P = .60). After implementation, mean cumulative catheter patient-days decreased (14.8 vs 9.9, P < .01), as did mean daily number of patients with catheters on the unit (3.7 vs 3.1, P = .02). There was 1 CAUTI before and after algorithm implementation, the latter deemed associated with algorithm nonadherence. Catheter use in a surgical floor control group where the algorithm was not implemented did not differ for any outcome over the same time period (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary approach to standardize catheter care with a TOV algorithm is feasible and effective in reducing catheter use. Further research is needed to determine its impact on CAUTI rate.

Immediate versus delayed urinary catheter removal following non-hysterectomy benign gynaecological laparoscopy: a randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare rates of urinary retention and postoperative urinary tract infection between women with immediate versus women with delayed removal of indwelling catheter following benign non-hysterectomy gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. DESIGN: This randomised clinical trial was conducted between February 2012 and December 2019, with follow-up to 6 weeks. SETTING: Two university-affiliated teaching hospitals in Sydney, Australia. POPULATION: Study participants were 693 women aged 18 years or over, undergoing non-hysterectomy laparoscopy for benign gynaecological conditions, excluding pelvic floor or concomitant bowel surgery. METHODS: Three hundred and fifty-five participants were randomised to immediate removal of urinary catheter and 338 participants were randomised to delayed removal of urinary catheter. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The co-primary outcomes were urinary retention and urinary tract infection. Secondary outcomes included hospital readmission, analgesia requirements, duration of hospitalisation and validated bladder function questionnaires. RESULTS: Urinary retention was higher after immediate compared with delayed removal of the urinary catheter (8.2% vs 4.2%, RR 1.8, 95% CI 1.0-3.0, p = 0.04). Although urinary tract infection was 7.2% following delayed removal of the urinary catheter and 4.7% following immediate removal of the urinary catheter, the difference was not statistically significant (RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.3-1.2, p = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: There is an increased risk of urinary retention with the immediate compared with the delayed removal of the urinary catheter following benign non-hysterectomy gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. The difference in urinary tract infection was not significant. There is 1/12 risk of re-catheterisation after immediate urinary catheter removal. It is important to ensure that patients report normal voiding and emptying prior to discharge, to reduce the need for readmission for the management of urinary retention.

Risk Factors and Real-World Short-Term Outcomes of a Failed Trial of Void After Rezum Therapy in a Multiethnic Population.

Background: Postoperative urinary retention is a common complication following surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia. We aimed to identify risk factors for a failed trial of void (TOV) following treatment with the Rezum system and assess the impact of a failed TOV on short-term outcomes. Methods: A single-office retrospective study was conducted on patients treated with Rezum therapy between 2017 and 2019. A urinary catheter was placed in all patients following Rezum therapy. Demographic data and outcome measures, including the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual (PVR), and adverse events, were analyzed at baseline and 1, 3, and/or 6 months postoperatively. Risk factors were identified through multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: A total of 289 patients were included. Thirty-five patients (12.1%) failed a TOV, while 254 (87.9%) had an effective TOV. All patients were given a TOV after a median of 5 days (4-5). Those who failed the TOV spent an additional mean of 13.7 ± 13.3 days with a catheter. Patients who failed the TOV were more likely to get a urinary tract infection compared with those who had an effective TOV (20.0% vs 4.7%, p < 0.001). All patients experienced significant improvements in IPSS, QoL, and Qmax at 1, 3, and/or 6 months. On multivariate analysis, a high baseline PVR was the only independent predictor of a failed TOV (odds ratio: 1.01, 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.01). A greater proportion of patients with a baseline PVR >200 mL failed the TOV (40.0%) compared with patients with a baseline PVR <200 mL (10.9%, p = 0.008). Conclusions: Approximately one in eight patients failed the TOV following Rezum therapy. Baseline PVR was the only independent risk factor for a failed TOV. Nevertheless, all patients experienced significant relief of urinary symptoms. Patients with high baseline PVR, particularly >200 mL, may require a catheter for an extended duration.

Bladder Backfilling versus Standard Catheter Removal for Trial of Void after Outpatient Laparoscopic Gynecologic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the rate of postoperative urinary retention and time to discharge between bladder backfilling and standard catheter removal for trial of void (TOV) after outpatient laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. Our secondary objectives were to compare the time to void, postoperative complications, and patient satisfaction. DATA SOURCES: We searched the PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library databases, and relevant reference lists of eligible articles up to March of 2021. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: This review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of TOV after outpatient laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) were reported. The quality of the studies was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data were analyzed with Review Manager 5.4 software (RevMan 5.4.1; Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom). TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Five RCTs (N = 488) were included. The bladder backfilling group had a significantly shorter time to void than the standard TOV group (WMD, -25.19 minutes; 95% CI, -44.60 to -5.77; p = .01). Successful TOV was not significantly different between the 2 (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.51 to -1.65; p = .77), without significant heterogeneity (I2 = 24%). There was also no significant difference in the time to discharge between the 2 TOV techniques (WMD, -25.19 minutes; 95% CI, -44.60 to -5.77; p = .01). There was no significant difference in complication rates or patient satisfaction between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: The bladder backfilling technique of TOV after outpatient laparoscopic gynecologic surgery may reduce the time to first spontaneous void without affecting patient satisfaction or postoperative complications, but it does not significantly affect the time to discharge or urinary retention.

Risk factors for urinary retention after urogynecologic surgery: A retrospective cohort study and prediction model.

AIMS: Postoperative urinary retention (POUR) is a common complication of urogynecological surgery. Our study aimed to identify demographic and perioperative risk factors to construct a prediction model for POUR in urogynecology. METHODS: Our retrospective cohort study reviewed all patients undergoing pelvic reconstructive surgeries at our tertiary care center (Jan 1, 2013-May 1, 2019). Demographic, pre-, intra- and postoperative variables were collected from medical records. The primary outcome, POUR, was defined as (1) early POUR (E-POUR), failing initial trial of void or; (2) late POUR (L-POUR), requiring an indwelling catheter or intermittent catheterization on discharge. Risk factors were identified through univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. A clinical prediction model was constructed with the most significant and clinically relevant risk factors. RESULTS: In 501 women, 182 (36.3%) had E-POUR and 61 of these women (12.2% of the entire cohort) had L-POUR. Multivariate logistic regression revealed preoperative postvoid residual (PVR) over 200 ml (odds ratio [OR]: 3.17; p = 0.026), voiding dysfunction symptoms extracted from validated questionnaires (OR: 3.00; p = 0.030), and number of concomitant procedures (OR: 1.30 per procedure; p = 0.021) as significant predictors of E-POUR; preoperative PVR more than 200 ml (OR: 4.07; p = 0.011) and antiincontinence procedure with (OR: 3.34; p = 0.023) and without (OR: 2.64; p = 0.019) concomitant prolapse repair as significant predictors of L-POUR. A prediction model (area under the curve: 0.70) was developed for E-POUR. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated preoperative PVR is the most significant risk factor for POUR. Alongside other risk factors, our prediction model for POUR can be used for patient counseling and surgical planning in urogynecologic surgery.

Bladder infusion versus standard catheter removal for trial of void: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and time-to-discharge of two methods of trial of void (TOV): bladder infusion versus standard catheter removal. METHODS: Electronic searches for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bladder infusion versus standard catheter removal were performed using multiple electronic databases from dates of inception to June 2020. Participants underwent TOV after acute urinary retention or postoperatively after intraoperative indwelling catheter (IDC) placement. Quality assessment and meta-analyses were performed, with odds ratio and mean time difference used as the outcome measures. RESULTS: Eight studies, comprising 977 patients, were included in the final analysis. Pooled meta-analysis demonstrated that successful TOV was significantly higher in the bladder infusion group compared to standard TOV (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.53-3.8, p = 0.0005), without significant heterogeneity (I2=19%). The bladder infusion group had a significantly shorter time-to-decision in comparison to standard TOV (weighted mean difference (WMD)-148.96 min, 95% CI - 242.29, - 55.63, p = 0.002) and shorter time-to-discharge (WMD - 89.68 min, 95% CI - 160.55, - 18.88, p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in complication rates between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The bladder infusion technique of TOV may be associated with a significantly increased likelihood of successful TOV and reduced time to discharge compared to standard TOV practices.

Infusion-fill method versus standard auto-fill trial of void protocol following a TVT-exact procedure: A randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To establish whether the infusion method trial of void (TOV) after a mid-urethral sling procedure, in contrast to the standard auto-fill TOV, permits discharge home from recovery, as these procedures are eminently suited to same day discharge, and the delay in achieving a successful TOV often keeps the patient in hospital overnight. METHOD: A randomised controlled trial performed between December 2014 and April 2016 at the University Hospital, enrolling 40 women undergoing a mid-urethral sling procedure for stress urinary incontinence. The women were randomised to infusion method or auto-fill method TOV. The primary outcome was discharge home from the recovery area of theatre. RESULTS: Discharge from recovery was not different between the two groups (odds ratio (OR) 1.3 95% CI: 0.3-5.9, P = 0.71). The rate of TOV being successfully passed in recovery was higher in the infusion-fill group compared to the standard auto-fill group (OR 4.5 95% CI 1.2-17.4, P = 0.025). This means that three women will undergo the infusion-fill to achieve one more successful TOV in recovery. CONCLUSIONS: The infusion method resulted in more women passing their TOV in recovery but this did not translate into more discharges from recovery.

Impact and costs of home-based trial of void compared with the day care setting.

AIMS: This paper presents the relative merits and comparative costs of conducting trial of void using Hospital-In-The-Home vs. the Day Procedure Unit. BACKGROUND: Hospitals increasingly discharge patients with acute urinary retention with indwelling urinary catheters. For these to be removed and patients supported to return to normal urinary function, outpatient or in-home services are used. To date, the relative effectiveness and costs of Hospital-In-The-Home care and Day Procedure Unit care for trial of void have not been examined. DESIGN: This retrospective study used a static-group comparison design. METHODS: Hospital administrative data from 1 February 2009-30 March 2011 for patients having trial of void in the Day Procedure Unit (n = 107) and Hospital-In-The-Home (n = 163) of a tertiary hospital in Western Australia were compared in terms of patient outcomes and costs. RESULTS: Day Procedure Unit patients had longer wait times than Hospital-In-The-Home patients; there was no difference between the two groups for average per patient days of service or successful first trials. Hospital-In-The-Home care did not increase the overall period of care. Per patient average ward-equivalent cost in the Day Procedure Unit was A$396 higher than the Hospital-In-The-Home ward-equivalent cost. The average cost saving per patient for Hospital-In-The-Home care including trial of void cost and emergency department visits was A$117. CONCLUSION: Patient outcomes from Hospital-In-The-Home trial of void in low-risk patients were comparable to those of Day Procedure Unit care and less costly. Hospital-In-The-Home care for this well-defined procedure could permit more efficient management of patient throughput.