Postoperative catheterization after anterior colporrhaphy: 2 versus 5 days. A multicentre randomized controlled trial
Open accessAbstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to compare the number of temporary catheter replacements and urinary tract infections after indwelling catheterization for 2 versus 5 days following an anterior colporrhaphy. METHODS: Two hundred forty-six patients were randomly assigned to 2 or 5 days of indwelling catheterization. Outcome measures were temporary catheter replacements because of post-voiding residual >200 mL after removal of the indwelling catheter, urinary tract infections, and hospital stay. All patients were analyzed according to the intention to treat principle. RESULTS: Compared to the 5-day protocol group, in the 2-day protocol group more patients needed temporary catheter replacement (9% versus 28%, odds ratio (OR) 4.0, confidence interval (CI) 1.9-8.3, p < 0.01), whereas less patients had a urinary tract infection (37% versus 22%, OR 0.5, CI 0.3-0.9, p = 0.02) and median hospital stay was lower. CONCLUSIONS: Removal of an indwelling catheter after 2 versus 5 days following anterior colporrhaphy is associated with more temporary catheter replacements, but less urinary tract infections and a shorter hospital stay.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In Weemhoff 2010, a power calculation was not stated.
“Power calculation: not stated”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Weemhoff 2010
The Methods section explicitly states a power calculation. It specifies 90% power, a 0.05 significance level, and a required sample of 112 patients per group, contrary to the claim that no power calculation was stated. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn women who fail their TOV after POP surgery, the day 2 IDC removal control group (with day 5 IDC removal as intervention) was less likely to have a UTI (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.90; 1 study, 250 women).
“In addition, Weemhoff 2010 found that in the day 2 IDC removal control group (day 5 IDC removal was the intervention arm), participants were less likely to have a UTI (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.90; 1 study, 250 women).”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Weemhoff 2010
Results (Table 2; page unavailable) report fewer culture-confirmed UTIs with day-2 than day-5 catheter removal: 22/101 versus 35/95, with a reported OR of 0.5 (95% CI 0.3–0.9). The cited OR of 0.48 is consistent with the table's counts, but the paper does not report a UTI comparison restricted to women who failed a trial of voiding. The Discussion also states that urine cultures were available for 196 patients, not 250. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn a single RCT, women who had an IDC for five days after a failed TOV were much less likely to need a long-term IDC (9%) compared to women who had an IDC for two days (28%).
“in a single RCT, women who had an IDC for five days after a failed TOV were much less likely to need a long‐term IDC (9%) compared to women who had an IDC for two days (28%) (Weemhoff 2010).”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Weemhoff 2010
The Results (Table 2; page not provided) report temporary catheter replacement in 9% of the five-day group versus 28% of the two-day group. The Methods state that women were assigned an indwelling catheter immediately after surgery, not after a failed trial of voiding. The reported outcome was temporary replacement after the first catheter removal, not a need for a long-term indwelling catheter. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAnother trial found that an IDC for two days after a failed TOV was associated with fewer UTIs than an IDC for five days (22% versus 37%).
“Similarly, another trial found that an IDC for two days after a failed TOV was associated with fewer UTIs than an IDC for five days (22% versus 37%, P = 0.02) (Weemhoff 2010).”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Weemhoff 2010
The Results report fewer UTIs with the two-day than the five-day catheterization protocol (22% versus 37%, p = 0.02). But the Methods state that patients were assigned to catheterization immediately after anterior colporrhaphy; a failed voiding assessment occurred only after catheter removal and could lead to replacement. The trial did not compare two versus five days of catheterization after a failed TOV. (LLM, conf=0.91)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn Weemhoff 2010, the risk of other bias was low.
“Other bias Low risk None detected”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Weemhoff 2010
The Discussion (page unavailable) says missing urine cultures occurred equally in both arms and therefore did not create a between-arm difference. The paper does not make an overall assessment that the risk of other bias was low or that none was detected; that is the citing authors’ judgment. (LLM, conf=0.73)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
In Weemhoff 2010, the risk of reporting bias from selective reporting was low.
“Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk None detected”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Weemhoff 2010
The Methods (page unavailable) name catheter replacement as the primary outcome and urinary tract infection and hospital stay as secondary outcomes; the Results (Table 2, page unavailable) report all three. This is consistent with no selective reporting being detected in the published paper, but the paper does not itself assess reporting-bias risk or establish that all originally planned outcomes were reported. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn Weemhoff 2010, the randomisation method was computer randomisation.
“Randomisation method: computer randomisation”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Weemhoff 2010
The Methods section (page unavailable) says an independent statistician made a randomization list, with allocation in blocks and sealed envelopes. It does not say the list was generated by computer, so the computer-randomisation detail is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn Weemhoff 2010, the risk of attrition bias from incomplete outcome data was low.
“Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk 250 enrolled, 246 randomised, 246 analysed”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Weemhoff 2010
The Results (page not provided) report that 250 patients agreed to participate, 246 were randomized, and patients with protocol deviations were analyzed in their allocated groups. The Methods say analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle. But urine cultures were missing for 20% of patients, so the paper does not fully support a low risk of incomplete outcome data for all outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn Weemhoff 2010, the risk of detection bias from blinding of outcome assessment was high.
“Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes High risk Blinding was not possible because of the character of the intervention.”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Weemhoff 2010
The Methods describe visibly different 2- and 5-day catheterization protocols, with outcomes assessed after catheter removal. They do not say whether outcome assessors were blinded or state that blinding was impossible, so the specific high-risk detection-bias rating is not established by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn Weemhoff 2010, the risk of performance bias from blinding of participants and personnel was high.
“Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes High risk Blinding was not possible because of the character of the intervention.”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Weemhoff 2010
The Methods describe catheter removal on either the second or fifth postoperative day, supporting the explanation that the intervention would be apparent to the personnel removing it. The paper does not state that participants and personnel were unblinded or assess performance bias as high; that risk rating is the citing authors’ judgment. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn Weemhoff 2010, the risk of selection bias from allocation concealment was low.
“Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk According to the randomisation list, opaque, numbered, and sealed envelopes were prepared by an independent person.”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Weemhoff 2010
In Weemhoff 2010, intention-to-treat analysis was performed.
“Intention‐to‐treat analysis”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Weemhoff 2010
In Weemhoff 2010, the risk of selection bias from random sequence generation was low.
“Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk A randomisation list was prepared by an independent statistician. Randomisation was performed in blocks and was stratified for different hospitals.”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Weemhoff 2010
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Predicting Short‐Term Urinary Retention After Vaginal Prolapse Surgery
Hakvoort, R. A., Dijkgraaf, M. G. W., Burger, M. P. M., Emanuel, M. H., & Roovers, J. (2009) · Neurourology and Urodynamics · doi:10.1002/nau.20636 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Short term urinary catheter policies following urogenital surgery in adults
Phipps, S., Yik Nyok, L. I. M., McClinton, S., Barry, C., Rane, A., & N'Dow, J. M. (2006) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004374.pub2 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
Antibiotic policies for short-term catheter bladder drainage in adults
Niël-Weise, B. S., & van den Broek, P. J. (2005) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005428 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
How long should urinary bladder catheterisation be continued after vaginal prolapse surgery?
Hakvoort, R. A., Elberink, R., Vollebregt, A., van der Ploeg, T., & Emanuel, M. H. (2004) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00181.x · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Hakvoort, R. A., Burger, M. P. M., Emanuel, M. H., & Roovers, J. (2009) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-009-0847-4 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Alonzo-Sosa, J. E., Jt, F.-C., & Paredes-Canul, M. (1997) · PubMed · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Thaweekul, Y., Bunyavejchevin, S., Wisawasukmongchol, W., & Santingamkun, A. (2004) · PubMed · Cited by 13 · see citing works
[Handling of Foley catheter regarding urinary retention syndrome following vaginal surgery].
Guzmán, S., Israel, E., Puente, R., Iglesias, R., Rosa, G., & Ulloa, C. C. (1994) · PubMed · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women
Maher, C., Feiner, B., Baeßler, K., & Glazener, C. M. A. (2010) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004014.pub4 · Cited by 1,120 · see citing works
Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women
Maher, C., Feiner, B., Baessler, K., & Schmid, C. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004014.pub5 · Cited by 784 · see citing works
Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse
Maher, C., Feiner, B., Baessler, K., Christmann-Schmid, C., Haya, N., & Brown, J. (2016) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004014.pub6 · Cited by 266 · see citing works
Weemhoff, M., Vergeldt, T. F. M., Notten, K., Serroyen, J., Kampschoer, P. H. N. M., & Roumen, F. J. M. E. (2012) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-011-1524-y · Cited by 137 · see citing works
Self-citationCatheter- Associated Urinary Tract Infections in Adult Patients
Kranz, J., Schmidt, S., Wagenlehner, F. R. A., & Schneidewind, L. (2020) · Deutsches Ärzteblatt international · doi:10.3238/arztebl.2020.0083 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery
Haya, N., Feiner, B., Baessler, K., Christmann-Schmid, C., & Maher, C. (2018) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd013105 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Pelvic organ prolapse surgery and bladder function
Baeßler, K., & Maher, C. (2013) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-013-2175-y · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Strategies for the removal of short-term indwelling urethral catheters in adults
Ellahi, A., Stewart, F. J., Kidd, E. A., Griffiths, R., Fernandez, R. S., & Omar, M. I. (2021) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004011.pub4 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Durnea, C., Pergialiotis, V., Duffy, J. M., Bergstrom, L., Elfituri, A., & Doumouchtsis, S. (2018) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-018-3781-5 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Gad, M. H., & AbdelAziz, H. H. (2021) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.16284 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Dieter, A. A., Conklin, J., Willis‐Gray, M. G., Desai, S., Grant, M., & Bradley, M. S. (2021) · Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2021.01.016 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Anatomical Cystocele Recurrence: Development and Internal Validation of a Prediction Model
Vergeldt, T. F. M., van Kuijk, S. M. J., Notten, K. J. B., Kluivers, K. B., & Weemhoff, M. (2016) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000001272 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Self-citationXie, N., Hu, Z., Ye, Z., Xu, Q., Chen, J., & Lin, Y. (2020) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-020-04522-y · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Schachar, J. S., Ossin, D. A., Plair, A. R., Hurtado, E. A., Parker‐Autry, C., Badlani, G. H., Davila, G. W., & Matthews, C. A. (2020) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2020.06.001 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Fernandez-Gonzalez, S., Martinez Franco, E., Martínez-Cumplido, R., Molinet Coll, C., Ojeda González, F., Gómez Roig, M. D., & Amat Tardiu, L. (2019) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-018-3818-9 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Catheter use in gynaecological practice
Aslam, N., & Moran, P. A. (2014) · The Obstetrician & Gynaecologist · doi:10.1111/tog.12102 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery
Shahid, U., Haya, N., Baessler, K., Christmann-Schmid, C., Yeung, E., Chen, Z., & Maher, C. (2025) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd013105.pub2 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Vergeldt, T. F. M., Notten, K. J. B., Kluivers, K. B., & Weemhoff, M. (2016) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-016-3216-0 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Self-citationUrinary catheterization in gynecological surgery: When should it be removed?
Fattah, A. N. A., & Santoso, B. I. (2013) · Medical Journal of Indonesia · doi:10.13181/mji.v22i3.589 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Urogynecology and pelvic reconstructive surgery
Robert, M., & Swenson, C. W. (2022) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-91208-2.00006-8 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Comparison of 1 Versus 3 Days Post-Operative Catheterization After Anterior Colporrhaphy
Ahmadi, S., Rahmani, E., Kambiz, A., & Sara, K. (2016) · Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research and Health Care · doi:10.18311/ajprhc/2016/7711 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse.
Christmann-Schmid, C., Baessler, K., Yeung, E., Haya, N., Mowat, A., Chen, Z., Wallace, S. A., & Maher, C. (2026) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004014.pub7
Kim, M. J., Lee, S., Lee, S. Y., Oh, S., & Jeon, M. J. (2024) · BMC Women s Health · doi:10.1186/s12905-024-03171-3 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Kordis, T., Kofol, A., & Blaganje, M. (2025) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm14238295 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Does applying postoperative suprapubic catheterisation in urogynecology benefit patients?
Gild, A., Schoenfisch, B., Huebner, M., Brucker, S. Y., Wallwiener, D. R., & Reisenauer, C. (2015) · Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics · doi:10.1007/s00404-015-3928-2 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Silver-Coated Foley Catheters to Reduce UTIs: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Lewis, K. E., Crisp, C. C., Ray, M. M., Bonglack, M. N., Carrel-Lammert, M. H., Aldrich, E. R., Pauls, R. N., Hoehn, J. M., & Yeung, J. (2025) · Urogynecology · doi:10.1097/spv.0000000000001634 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Tan, J. C., & Wilson, T. S. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-45268-5_6 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Epidural analgesia during labour : choices and consequences
Wassen, M. M. L. H. (2014) · doi:10.26481/dis.20141212mw
Self-citationArdiansyah, E., Lubis, A. T., & Syahputra, M. I. (2021) · Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences · doi:10.3889/oamjms.2021.6288
(2012) · Current Opinion in Urology · doi:10.1097/mou.0b013e3283551cbf
Operationen bei Descensus genitalis mit oder ohne Belastungsinkontinenz
Baeßler, K. (2024) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-3-437-21941-2.00017-x
- Authors
- Weemhoff, M., Wassen, M. M. L. H., Korsten, L., Serroyen, J., Kampschöer, P. H. N. M., & Roumen, F. J. M. E.
- Affiliations
- Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL)
- Maastricht University (NL)
- Atrium Medisch Centrum Parkstad (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Weemhoff, Mirjam
- Venue
- International Urogynecology Journal
- Published
- 2010-10-20
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 477-483
- ISSN
- 0937-3462 (ISSN-L)
- 1433-3023
- PMC
- PMC3051058
- OpenAlex
- W1979490369
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc
- Locations
- International Urogynecology Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Urinary Tract Infections Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Urinary Bladder and Prostate Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Ureteral procedures and complications
- Keywords
- anterior colporrhaphy, indwelling urinary catheter, catheter removal timing, urinary tract infection, post-void residual urine, postoperative hospital stay, pelvic organ prolapse surgery
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Catheters, Indwelling, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Postoperative Complications, Time Factors, Urinary Catheterization, Urinary Tract Infections, Urinary Retention, Cystocele
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
