You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Impact of timing of urinary catheter removal on voiding dysfunction after radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer
  1. Sarah Huepenbecker1,
  2. María Clara Santía2,
  3. Ross Harrison1,
  4. Ricardo Dos Reis3,
  5. Rene Pareja4,5,
  6. Maria D Iniesta1,
  7. Larissa A Meyer1,
  8. Michael Frumovitz1,
  9. Andres Zorrilla-Vaca6,7 and
  10. Pedro T Ramirez1
  1. 1 Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
  2. 2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Asociacion de Medicos y Profesionales del Hospital Aleman, Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
  3. 3 Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Hospital de Cancer de Barretos, Barretos, Sao Paolo, Brazil
  4. 4 Gynecology, Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia, Bogota, Colombia
  5. 5 Gynecologic Oncology, Clinica de Oncología Astorga, Medellin, Colombia
  6. 6 Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
  7. 7 Anesthesia, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Pedro T Ramirez, Department of Gynecologic Oncology & Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA; peramire{at}mdanderson.org

Abstract

Objectives To evaluate whether the timing of postoperative urinary catheter removal is associated with voiding dysfunction after radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer within contemporary surgical practice.

Methods We performed an institutional retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent Piver type II-III open or minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IA1 with lymphovascular invasion to stage IIA) between January 2006 and December 2019. We compared voiding dysfunction (inability to spontaneously void with a post-void residual <100 mL after catheter removal) and outcomes based on postoperative timing of urinary catheter removal using univariate and multivariate logistic regressions.

Results Among 234 patients, 86 (36.8%) underwent open surgery and 112 (47.9%) used enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways. 29 (12.4%) patients had urinary catheter removal between 1–5 days postoperatively (group 1), 141 (60.3%) between 6–10 days (group 2), and 64 (27.3%) between 11–15 days (group 3). The overall rate of voiding dysfunction was 11.5%, with no difference between group 1 (17.2%), group 2 (11.3%), and group 3 (9.4%) (p=0.54). Group 1 had a significantly shorter time from surgery to spontaneous voiding (4 days, IQR 3–5 days) compared with group 2 (8 days, IQR 7–10 days) and group 3 (13 days, IQR 11–15 days) (p<0.01). There was no difference in hospital length of stay, urinary tract infection, or re-admission due to a genitourinary complication within 60 days of surgery based on timing of catheter removal. On multivariate analysis, the odds of voiding dysfunction did not differ by tumor size, type of hysterectomy, cancer stage, surgical approach, ERAS timeframe, or timing of catheter removal group.

Conclusion There was no difference in voiding dysfunction or postoperative genitourinary complications based on timing of urinary catheter removal after radical hysterectomy. Early catheter removal should be considered in this population.

  • Cervical Cancer
  • Hysterectomy
  • Postoperative Care

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2022-003654

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available upon reasonable request.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @sarah_huep, @frumovitz, @pedroramirezMD

    • Contributors SPH: investigation, methodology, writing - original draft. MCS: investigation, writing - original draft. RFH: conceptualization, writing - review and editing. RdR: conceptualization, writing - review and editing. RP: conceptualization, writing - review and editing. MDI: data curation, project administration, investigation, writing - review and editing. LAM: supervision, writing - review and editing. MF: supervision, writing - review and editing. AZV: formal analysis, methodology, writing - review and editing. PTR: conceptualization, supervision, writing - review and editing. PTR is responsible for the overall content as guarantor.

    • Funding This work was supported in part by the MD Anderson Cancer Center Support Grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH/NCI P30 CA016672) and the T32 training grant (NIH/NCI CA101642). The funders played no role in the development, analysis, or presentation of the current study.

    • Competing interests SPH reports funding support for the present manuscript from the MD Anderson Cancer Center Support Grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH/NCI P30 CA016672) and the T32 training grant (NIH/NCI CA101642). LAM reports consulting fees from Bristol Meyers Squibb, advisory board participation for GlaxoSmithKline, and stocks in Crisper, Invitae, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. MF is a consultant/speaker for Stryker, a consultant for Stryker, Astrellas, and Seagen, and receives research funding from Astra Zeneca and GlaxoSmithKline. PTR reports payments as Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.