CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 99Urinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchPelvic floor disorders treatmentsUrinary Tract Infections Management

Comparing clean intermittent catheterisation and transurethral indwelling catheterisation for incomplete voiding after vaginal prolapse surgery: a multicentre randomised trial: Optimising treatment of incomplete voiding

Hakvoort, RA, Thijs, SD, Bouwmeester, FW, Broekman, AM, Ruhe, IM, Vernooij, MM, Burger, MP, Emanuel, MH +1 more·2011·BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
DOI 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.02935.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare clean intermittent catheterisation with transurethral indwelling catheterisation for the treatment of abnormal post-void residual bladder volume (PVR) following vaginal prolapse surgery. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Five teaching hospitals and one non-teaching hospital in the Netherlands. POPULATION: All patients older than 18 years experiencing abnormal PVR following vaginal prolapse surgery, with or without the use of mesh. Exclusion criteria were: any neurological or anxiety disorder, or the need for combined anti-incontinence surgery. METHODS: All patients were given an indwelling catheter directly after surgery, which was removed on the first postoperative day. Patients with a PVR of more than 150 ml after their first void were randomised for clean intermittent catheterisation (CIC), performed by nursing staff, or for transurethral indwelling catheterisation (TIC) for 3 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Bacteriuria rate at end of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 87 patients were included in the study. Compared with the TIC group (n = 42), there was a lower risk of developing bacteriuria (14 versus 38%; P = 0.02) or urinary tract infection (UTI; 12 versus 33%; P = 0.03) in the CIC group (n = 45); moreover, a shorter period of catheterisation was required (18 hours CIC versus 72 hours TIC; P < 0.001). Patient satisfaction was similar in the two groups, and no adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: Clean intermittent catheterisation is preferable over indwelling catheterisation for 3 days in the treatment of abnormal PVR following vaginal prolapse surgery.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.02935.x

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Four trials with a total of 582 women evaluated POP surgery and management of catheters once trial of void (TOV) fails.

    “POP surgery and management of catheters once trial of void (TOV) fails: four trials with a total of 582 women (Boyd 2019; Hakvoort 2011; Shatkin‐Margolis 2019; Weemhoff 2010).”

    From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Hakvoort 2011

  • In women who fail their TOV after POP surgery, the CISC control group (with day 3 IDC removal as intervention) had fewer urinary tract infections (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.87; 1 study, 87 women).

    “Hakvoort 2011 found that in the CISC control group (intervention arm was day 3 IDC removal), there were fewer urinary tract infections (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.87; 1 study, 87 women).”

    From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Hakvoort 2011

  • One trial found that women were less likely to develop UTIs when using clean intermittent self-catheterisation (5 of 45 women; 12%) as opposed to an IDC for three days (13 of 42 women; 33%).

    “One trial found that women were less likely to develop UTIs when using clean intermittent self‐catheterisation (CISC; 5 of 45 women; 12%) as opposed to an IDC for three days (13 of 42 women; 33%) (P = 0.03) (Hakvoort 2011).”

    From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Hakvoort 2011

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hakvoort, R., Thijs, S., Bouwmeester, F., Broekman, A., Ruhe, I., Vernooij, M., Burger, M., Emanuel, M., & Roovers, J.
Affiliations
  • Spaarne Ziekenhuis (NL)
  • Waterlandziekenhuis (NL)
  • Elisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis (NL)
  • Flevoziekenhuis (NL)
  • St. Antonius Ziekenhuis (NL)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Hakvoort, RA
Venue
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-04-11
Volume
118
Issue
9
Pages
1055-1060
ISSN
  • 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-0328
DOI
10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.02935.x
OpenAlex
W2142715054
Cited by
99
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 9
FWCI
11.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 1604 d)
Locations
  • BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Urinary Bladder and Prostate Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Urinary Tract Infections Management
Keywords
clean intermittent catheterization, post-void residual urine, vaginal prolapse surgery, mesh repair, bacteriuria, urinary tract infection, catheter dwell time, patient satisfaction
MeSH terms
Bacteriuria, Catheters, Indwelling, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Postoperative Complications, Time Factors, Urinary Catheterization, Urinary Tract Infections, Uterine Prolapse, Urinary Retention, Patient Satisfaction

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