CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchUreteral procedures and complications

Early catheter removal after pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: a randomized trial

Open access
Carter-Brooks, Charelle M., Zyczynski, Halina M., Moalli, Pamela A., Brodeur, Peter G., Shepherd, Jonathan P.·2018·International Urogynecology Journal
DOI 10.1007/s00192-018-3641-3PMC PMC6612279
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis Studies have yet to examine the impact of day-of-surgery voiding trials on post-operative urinary retention in women undergoing obliterative and apical suspension procedures for pelvic organ prolapse. Our objective was to evaluate if time to spontaneous void after these procedures is shorter when a voiding trial is performed on the day of surgery compared with our standard practice of post-operative day 1. Methods We conducted a randomized, parallel-arm trial in patients undergoing major pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. Women were randomized 1:1 to an early (4 h post-operatively on the day of surgery) or a standard (6 am on post-operative day 1) retrograde voiding trial. Results A total of 57 women consented. Mean age and BMI were 65 ± 11 and 27.9 ± 4.4. Most women had stage III pelvic organ prolapse (77.2%). Groups had similar baseline characteristics. In the intention-to-treat analysis (n = 57), there was no difference in time to spontaneous void in the early versus standard voiding trial groups (15.9 ± 3.8 vs 28.4 ± 3.1 hours, p = 0.081). In the adjusted analysis using mutlivariable linear regression, an early voiding trial decreased the time to spontaneous void (abeta -2.00 h, p = 0.031) when controlling for vaginal packing and stage IV prolapse. In the per-protocol analysis, which excluded 4 patients for crossover, spontaneous void occurred 17 hours faster in the early voiding trial group (14.6 ± 3.7 vs 31.8 ± 2.9 hours; p = 0.022). Early voiding trial patients experienced ambulation sooner and more often than the standard group (p = 0.02). Conclusions A day-of-surgery voiding trial did not prolong catheter use after obliterative and apical suspension procedures.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00192-018-3641-3

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Five trials with a total of 478 women evaluated POP surgery with in-dwelling catheter removal before 24 hours versus at 24 hours after surgery.

    “POP surgery with in‐dwelling catheter removal before 24 hours versus at 24 hours after surgery: five trials with a total of 478 women (Aslam 2020; Bray 2017; Carter‐Brooks 2018; Rajan 2017; Vallabh‐Patel 2020).”

    From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Carter‐Brooks 2018

    The Study population, Randomization, and Results sections establish that this was one randomized trial in women undergoing POP surgery, with 57 participants. The Introduction describes a day-of-surgery voiding trial versus one on postoperative day 1, but does not establish catheter removal at exactly 24 hours in the standard group. The five-trial total of 478 women cannot be verified from this individual trial. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Ten trials reported on bladder function (Aslam 2020; Bray 2017; Carter-Brooks 2018; Kamilya 2010; Letouzey 2017; Marschalek 2021; Rahn 2023; Rajan 2017; Rockefeller 2021; Russo 2020).

    “Ten trials reported on bladder function (Aslam 2020; Bray 2017; Carter‐Brooks 2018; Kamilya 2010; Letouzey 2017; Marschalek 2021; Rahn 2023; Rajan 2017; Rockefeller 2021; Russo 2020).”

    From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Carter‐Brooks 2018

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. [1]Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Visco AG. Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 112(6): 1201– 6. 19037026
  2. [2]Book NM, Novi B, Novi JM, Pulvino JQ. Postoperative voiding dysfunction following posterior colporrhaphy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012; 18(1): 32– 4. 22453264
  3. [3]Foster RT, Borawski KM, South MM, Weidner AC, Webster GD, Amundsen CL. A randomized, controlled trial evaluating 2 techniques of postoperative bladder testing after transvaginal surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 197(6): 627.e1– 4. 18060956
  4. [4]Geller EJ, Hankins KJ, Parnell BA, Robinson BL, Dunivan GC. Diagnostic accuracy of retrograde and spontaneous voiding trials for postoperative voiding dysfunction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 118(3): 637– 42. 21860294
  5. [5]Hakvoort RA, Dijkgraaf MG, Burger MP, Emanuel MH, Roovers JP. Predicting short-term urinary retention after vaginal prolapse surgery. Neurourol Urodyn. 2009; 28(3): 225– 8. 19130599
  6. [6]Geller EJ. Prevention and management of postoperative urinary retention after urogynecologic surgery. Int J Womens Health. 2014; 6: 829– 38. 25210477 PMC4156001
  7. [7]Bross S, Schumacher S, Scheepe JR, Zendler S, Braun PM, Alken P, Effects of acute urinary bladder overdistension on bladder response during sacral neurostimulation. Eur Urol. 1999; 36(4): 354– 9. 10473998
  8. [8]Madersbacher H, Cardozo L, Chapple C, Abrams P, Toozs-Hobson P, Young JS, What are the causes and consequences of bladder overdistension? ICI-RS 2011. Neurourol Urodyn. 2012; 31(3): 317– 21. 22419355
  9. [9]Turner LC, Kantartzis K, Shepherd JP. Predictors of postoperative acute urinary retention in women undergoing minimally invasive sacral colpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015; 21(1): 39– 42. 25185611
  10. [10]Doll KM, Dusetzina SB, Robinson W. Trends in inpatient and out-patient hysterectomy and oophorectomy rates among commercially insured women in the United States, 2000–2014. JAMA Surg. 2016; 151(9): 876– 7. 27168235 PMC5480952
  11. [11]McCormack HM, Horne DJ, Sheather S. Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: a critical review. Psychol Med. 1988; 18(4): 1007– 19. 3078045
  12. [12]Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene RE. STAI Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1970.
  13. [15]Baldini G, Bagry H, Aprikian A, Carli F. Postoperative urinary 18. retention: anesthetic and perioperative considerations. Anesthesiology. 2009; 110(5): 1139– 57. 19352147
  14. [16]Barber EL, Neubauer NL, Gossett DR. Risk of venous thromboembolism in abdominal versus minimally invasive hysterectomy for benign conditions. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 212(5): 609.e1– 7. 25511239
  15. [17]Graves N, Janda M, Merollini K, Gebski V, Obermair A; LACE trial committee. The cost-effectiveness of total laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to total abdominal hysterectomy for the treatment of early stage endometrial cancer. BMJ Open 2013; 3(4): e001884. PMC3641468 23604345
  16. [18]Mahdi H, Goodrich S, Lockhart D, DeBernardo R, Moslemi-Kebria M. Predictors of surgical site infection in women undergoing hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease: a multicenter analysis using the national surgical quality improvement program data. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014; 21(5): 901– 9. 24768957
  17. [19]Mueller MG, Pilecki MA, Catanzarite T, Jain U, Kim JY, Kenton K. Venous thromboembolism in reconstructive pelvic surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 211(5): 552.e1– 6. 25068557
  18. [20]American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 91: treatment of urinary tract infections in nonpregnant women. Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 111(3): 785– 94. 18310389

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Carter-Brooks, C. M., Zyczynski, H. M., Moalli, P. A., Brodeur, P. G., & Shepherd, J. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Trinity Health (US)
Corresponding author
Carter-Brooks, Charelle M.
ORCID
Venue
International Urogynecology Journal
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-03-29
Volume
29
Issue
8
Pages
1203-1212
ISSN
  • 0937-3462 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-3023
DOI
10.1007/s00192-018-3641-3
PMC
PMC6612279
OpenAlex
W2794728408
Cited by
38
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
3.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Urogynecology Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001857)
  • Magee-Womens Research Institute
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Urinary Bladder and Prostate Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Ureteral procedures and complications
Keywords
early catheter removal, voiding trial, pelvic floor reconstruction, postoperative urinary retention, pelvic organ prolapse, vaginal packing, ambulation after surgery
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Postoperative Complications, Gynecologic Surgical Procedures, Urination Disorders, Vagina, Urinary Retention, Treatment Outcome, Pelvic Floor, Plastic Surgery Procedures, Pelvic Organ Prolapse

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