Voiding efficiency: a predictor of failed trial off catheter after transurethral resection of prostate.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY International Urology and Nephrology Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-27 DOI:10.1007/s11255-024-04128-z
Aniqa Saeed, Wajahat Aziz, Sana Basit, Iman Bari, M Hammad Ather
{"title":"Voiding efficiency: a predictor of failed trial off catheter after transurethral resection of prostate.","authors":"Aniqa Saeed, Wajahat Aziz, Sana Basit, Iman Bari, M Hammad Ather","doi":"10.1007/s11255-024-04128-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Following transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), there is no clear recommendation for the catheter duration, and objective criteria are needed to determine appropriate time for trial off catheter. Current study is aimed to identify the high-risk patients for failed trial off catheter and the association with preoperative voiding efficiency with postoperative failed trial without catheter.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>This is cross-sectional single institutional study. All eligible patients who underwent TURP were followed preoperatively for symptoms and workup, including voiding efficiency based on ultrasound findings, intraoperatively for resection parameters, and postoperatively for a trial off a catheter. All the findings were documented, and the data were analyzed on SPSS(TM) 22. Demographic variables were calculated in the form of frequency and percentages. The association of voiding efficiency with failed trials off catheters was checked through Chi-square and binary logistic regression analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>132 patients were included in the study. The mean voiding efficiency was 57.5%. Based on voiding efficiency cut off, of 50%, patients were divided into two groups. The association between voiding efficiency and failed trials off catheters was not found to be statistically significant, with a p value of 0.79. Only prevoid volume, postvoid volume, duration of symptoms, and upper tract damage were found to be statistically significant predictors of failed trial off catheter, with a p value of < 0.05.</p>","PeriodicalId":14454,"journal":{"name":"International Urology and Nephrology","volume":" ","pages":"3759-3764"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Urology and Nephrology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-024-04128-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Following transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), there is no clear recommendation for the catheter duration, and objective criteria are needed to determine appropriate time for trial off catheter. Current study is aimed to identify the high-risk patients for failed trial off catheter and the association with preoperative voiding efficiency with postoperative failed trial without catheter.

Methodology: This is cross-sectional single institutional study. All eligible patients who underwent TURP were followed preoperatively for symptoms and workup, including voiding efficiency based on ultrasound findings, intraoperatively for resection parameters, and postoperatively for a trial off a catheter. All the findings were documented, and the data were analyzed on SPSS(TM) 22. Demographic variables were calculated in the form of frequency and percentages. The association of voiding efficiency with failed trials off catheters was checked through Chi-square and binary logistic regression analysis.

Results: 132 patients were included in the study. The mean voiding efficiency was 57.5%. Based on voiding efficiency cut off, of 50%, patients were divided into two groups. The association between voiding efficiency and failed trials off catheters was not found to be statistically significant, with a p value of 0.79. Only prevoid volume, postvoid volume, duration of symptoms, and upper tract damage were found to be statistically significant predictors of failed trial off catheter, with a p value of < 0.05.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
排尿效率:经尿道前列腺切除术后关闭导管试验失败的预测因素。
目的:经尿道前列腺切除术(TURP)后,对于导尿管的持续时间没有明确的建议,需要客观的标准来确定试用导尿管的适当时间。目前的研究旨在确定导尿管关闭试验失败的高危患者,以及术前排尿效率与术后无导尿管试验失败的关联:本研究为横断面单机构研究。所有符合条件的 TURP 患者均在术前接受了症状和检查,包括基于超声检查结果的排尿效率、术中的切除参数和术后的无导尿管试验。所有检查结果均记录在案,并使用 SPSS(TM) 22 对数据进行分析。人口统计学变量以频率和百分比的形式进行计算。通过Chi-square和二元逻辑回归分析检查了排尿效率与导尿管试验失败的关系:研究共纳入 132 名患者。平均排尿效率为 57.5%。根据排尿效率的临界值(50%),患者被分为两组。研究发现,排尿效率与导尿管试验失败之间的关系并无统计学意义,P 值为 0.79。只有排尿前排尿量、排尿后排尿量、症状持续时间和上尿道损伤在统计学上对导尿管关闭试验失败有显著的预测作用,P 值为 0.79。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Urology and Nephrology
International Urology and Nephrology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
329
审稿时长
1.7 months
期刊介绍: International Urology and Nephrology publishes original papers on a broad range of topics in urology, nephrology and andrology. The journal integrates papers originating from clinical practice.
期刊最新文献
Correction to: Finerenone in type 2 diabetic and albuminuric renal disease patients: three case reports. Crohn's disease-associated IgA nephropathy may prone to better renal outcome. Docetaxel versus androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (ARSI) against chemo-naïve castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC): propensity score matched analysis in real world. Analysis of factors influencing the trajectory of fatigue in maintenance haemodialysis patients: a longitudinal study. Prevalence of kidney disease in patients with different types of cancer or hematological malignancies: a cross-sectional study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1