Effect of Intraoperative Urinary Catheter Use on Postoperative Urinary Retention After Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Urinary catheters are commonly placed during laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair as a presumed protection against postoperative urinary retention (PUR), one of the most common complications following this operation. Data from randomized clinical trials evaluating the effect of catheters on PUR are lacking. Objective: To investigate the effect of intraoperative catheters on PUR after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 2-arm registry-based single-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted at 6 academic and community hospitals in the US from March 2019 to March 2021 with a 30-day follow-up period following surgery. All patients who presented with inguinal hernias were assessed for eligibility, 534 in total. Inclusion criteria were adult patients undergoing laparoscopic, elective, unilateral, or bilateral inguinal hernia repair. Exclusion criteria were inability to tolerate general anesthesia and failure to understand and sign the written consent form. A total of 43 patients were excluded prior to intervention. Interventions: Patients in the treatment arm had placement of a urinary catheter after induction of general anesthesia and removal at the end of procedure. Those in the control arm had no urinary catheter placement. Main Outcomes and Measures: PUR rate. Results: Of the 491 patients enrolled, 241 were randomized to catheter placement, and 250 were randomized to no catheter placement. The median (IQR) age was 61 (51-68) years, and 465 participants (94.7%) were male. Overall, 44 patients (9.1%) developed PUR. There was no difference in the rate of PUR between the catheter and no-catheter groups (23 patients [9.6%] vs 21 patients [8.5%], respectively; P = .79). There were no intraoperative bladder injuries. In the catheter group, there was 1 incident of postoperative urethral trauma in a patient who presented to the emergency department with PUR leading to a suprapubic catheter placement. Conclusions and Relevance: Intraoperative urinary catheters did not reduce the risk of PUR after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. While their use did not appear to be associated with a high rate of iatrogenic complications, there may be a low rate of catastrophic complications. In patients who voided urine preoperatively, catheter placement did not appear to confer any advantage and thus their use may be reconsidered. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03835351.

Negative Pressure Therapy for Management of High Output Duodenal Fistula.

This case study describes a patient with duodenal perforation caused by foreign body ingestion who postoperatively developed high output duodenal fistula and intra-abdominal sepsis. The management of this complication included the unique application of negative pressure wound vacuum therapy via retroperitoneal drains. This assisted the closure of the duodenal fistula, prevented surgical reintervention, helped control intra-abdominal sepsis, and simplified local wound care. Application of closed incision negative pressure therapy to the retroperitoneal space via surgical drains is a technically easy and well-tolerated modality that accelerates duodenal fistula closure.

Diagnosis of penetrating injuries of the pharynx and esophagus in the severely injured patient.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of penetrating pharyngeal and esophageal injuries are difficult when the patient has severe facial injuries, is obese or intubated, and hemodynamically unstable. Radiologic aids may be either unsuitable or unreliable. Videoendoscopy, preferably by the trauma surgeon, affords direct visualization at the bedside and is timely and expeditious. METHODS: Patients included in the study had penetrating injuries to the face/neck or torso. Evaluation began with careful assessment of the trajectory, followed by videoendoscopy and a contrast study. Data collected included the accuracy of diagnosis (compared with anatomic findings), time required to perform the studies, and complications resulting from both tests and repair. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were included in the study. Contrast study detected all esophageal injuries, but failed to detect any hypopharyngeal injuries particularly in the intubated patients. Videoendoscopy detected all injuries, hypopharyngeal and esophageal in intubated and nonintubated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Radiologic studies should not be used for pharyngeal injuries. Although radiologic studies accurately diagnosed penetrating injuries of the esophagus, it is not as expeditious as videoendoscopy performed by the trauma surgeon. Videoendoscopy should be part of the trauma surgeons' armamentarium.