Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 14Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchUreteral procedures and complications

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Comparison of Two Methods of Catheter Management After Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Open access
Boyd, Sarah S., O'Sullivan, David M., Tunitsky-Bitton, Elena·2019·Obstetrics & Gynecology
DOI 10.1097/aog.0000000000003525
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare effects on activity between two catheter management systems after failed voiding trial after pelvic reconstructive surgery. METHODS: Women with a failed postoperative voiding trial after reconstructive pelvic surgeries were randomized to plug–unplug or continuous drainage catheters. The primary outcome was a mean activity assessment scale score. Secondary outcomes included urinary tract infection (UTI), time to passing outpatient voiding trial, and patient satisfaction. Enrollees who passed the voiding trial were assigned to a “Reference” arm. Ninety participants (30 per arm) provided more than 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.33 in the primary outcome, using a two-sided alpha of 0.05. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients were randomized (32 plug–unplug, 31 continuous drainage). The first 30 participants discharged without a catheter comprised the reference arm. There was no difference in postoperative activity assessment scale scores (total: plug–unplug 70.3, continuous drainage 67.7, reference arm 79.4; P=.090) between arms. Women in the continuous drainage arm noted more difficulty compared with the plug–unplug arm when managing the catheter “during the day” (P=.043) and “all the time” (P=.049) and felt the catheter impeded activities (P=.012) and wearing clothes (P=.005). The catheter arms had significantly higher rates of culture-positive UTI compared with the reference arm (58.7% vs 6.7%, P<.001). However, rate of UTI did not differ between catheter arms (plug–unplug, 68.8% vs continuous drainage, 48.4%, P=.625). The majority of patients passed their outpatient voiding trials at the initial postoperative visit (plug–unplug 71.9%, continuous drainage 58.1%, P=.250). There was no difference in patient satisfaction, with the majority reporting they were “very satisfied” (plug–unplug 78.1%, continuous drainage 80.0%, reference 66.7%, P=.202). CONCLUSION: Postoperative activity does not differ in patients discharged with plug–unplug or continuous drainage catheters, but those with plug–unplug perceive easier management and ability to complete activities of daily living. The plug–unplug method is an acceptable alternative to traditional catheterization after pelvic reconstructive surgery. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03071211.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/aog.0000000000003525

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Baessler, 2013, Pelvic organ prolapse surgery and bladder function, Int Urogynecol J, 24, 1843, 10.1007/s00192-013-2175-y · DOI
  2. Yune, 2018, Postoperative urinary retention after pelvic organ prolapse repair : vaginal versus robotic transabdominal approach, Neurourol Urodyn, 37, 1794, 10.1002/nau.23526 · DOI
  3. Hakvoort, 2011, Comparing clean intermittent catheterisation and transurethral indwelling catheterisation for incomplete voiding after vaginal prolapse surgery: a multicentre randomised trial, BJOG, 118, 1055, 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.02935.x · DOI · Paper page
  4. Tunitsky-Bitton, 2015, Assessment of voiding after sling: a randomized trial of 2 methods of postoperative catheter management after midurethral sling surgery for stress urinary incontinence in women, Am J Obstet Gynecol, 212, 597, 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.11.033 · DOI
  5. Kandadai, 2016, A randomized controlled trial of patient-controlled valve catheter and indwelling Foley catheter for short-term bladder drainage, Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg, 22, 88, 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000249 · DOI
  6. Elkadry, 2003, Patient-selected goals: a new perspective on surgical outcome, Am J Obstet Gynecol, 189, 1551, 10.1016/S0002-9378(03)00932-3 · DOI
  7. Mahajan, 2006, Patient-centered surgical outcomes: the impact of goal achievement and urge incontinence on patient satisfaction one year after surgery, Am J Obstet Gynecol, 194, 722, 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.08.043 · DOI
  8. Virdi, 2016, Urinary retention: catheter drainage bag or catheter valve?, Curr Urol, 9, 28, 10.1159/000442847 · DOI
  9. Addison, 1999, Catheter valves: a special focus on the Bard Flip-FloTM catheter, Br J Nurs, 8, 576, 10.12968/bjon.1999.8.9.6617 · DOI
  10. Sabbuba, 2005, Does the valve regulated release of urine from the bladder decrease encrustation and blockage of indwelling catheters by crystalline proteus mirabilis biofilms?, J Urol, 173, 262, 10.1097/01.ju.0000141139.76350.49 · DOI
  11. Moher, 2010, CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials, J Clin Epidemiol, 63, e1, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.004 · DOI · Paper page
  12. McCarthy, 2005, Assessment of patient functional status after surgery, J Am Coll Surg, 201, 171, 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2005.03.035 · DOI
  13. Barber, 2012, Validation of the activities assessment scale in women undergoing pelvic reconstructive surgery, Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg, 18, 205, 10.1097/SPV.0b013e31825e6422 · DOI
  14. Ferrando, 2018, A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial on the effect of local analgesia on postoperative gluteal pain in patients undergoing sacrospinous ligament colpopexy, Am J Obstet Gynecol, 218, 599.e1, 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.03.033 · DOI
  15. Propst, 2019, Randomized double-blind trial of short- versus long-acting analgesia at the sacrospinous ligament, Int Urogynecol J, 30, 123, 10.1007/s00192-018-3758-4 · DOI
  16. Hota, 2018, Opioid use following gynecologic and pelvic reconstructive surgery, Int Urogynecol J, 29, 1441, 10.1007/s00192-017-3474-5 · DOI
  17. Fanfani, 2015, Early postoperative bladder training in patients submitted to radical hysterectomy: is it still necessary? A randomized trial, Arch Gynecol Obstet, 291, 883, 10.1007/s00404-014-3500-5 · DOI
  18. Segal, 1979, Postoperative bladder training, Am J Obstet Gynecol, 133, 366, 10.1016/0002-9378(79)90052-8 · DOI
  19. Han, 2017, Comparison of urinary tract infection rates associated with transurethral catheterization, suprapubic tube and clean intermittent catheterization in the postoperative setting: a network meta-analysis, J Urol, 198, 1353, 10.1016/j.juro.2017.07.069 · DOI

Cited by

See all 14

Metadata

Authors
Boyd, S. S., O'Sullivan, D. M., & Tunitsky-Bitton, E.
Affiliations
Hartford Hospital (US)
ORCID
Venue
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2019-11
Volume
134
Issue
5
Pages
1037-1045
ISSN
0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/aog.0000000000003525
OpenAlex
W2979331115
Cited by
14
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3
FWCI
1.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Urinary Bladder and Prostate Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Ureteral procedures and complications
Keywords
catheter management, pelvic reconstruction, urinary catheterization, urinary tract infection, postoperative activity, patient satisfaction, women's health, pelvic organ prolapse surgery, postoperative voiding dysfunction, activities of daily living, catheter removal timing, catheter-related infection risk
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Postoperative Complications, Self Care, Urinary Catheterization, Urinary Tract Infections, Urinary Retention, Treatment Outcome, Plastic Surgery Procedures, Device Removal, Pelvic Organ Prolapse, Patient Preference

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Comparison of Two Methods of Catheter Management After Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/aog.0000000000003525
The paper
Boyd, S. S., O'Sullivan, D. M., & Tunitsky-Bitton, E. (2019). A Comparison of Two Methods of Catheter Management After Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000003525

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.