Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 1994 Apr;37(4):330-4.
doi: 10.1007/BF02053592.

Prophylactic ureteral catheterization in colon surgery. A five-year review

Affiliations

Prophylactic ureteral catheterization in colon surgery. A five-year review

W N Bothwell et al. Dis Colon Rectum. 1994 Apr.

Abstract

Purpose: The preoperative placement of prophylactic ureteral catheters in operations of the distal colon is both commonplace and controversial. We assessed the frequency, safety, and effectiveness of their use over a five and one-half-year period in a teaching hospital.

Methods: The charts of 561 consecutive patients who underwent sigmoid or rectosigmoid colectomy from 1986 to 1991 were analyzed for age, sex, diagnosis, type of colectomy, placement of ureteral catheters, and ureteral complications.

Results: Ureteral catheterization was attempted in 92 patients (16.4 percent); it was successful bilaterally in 80 patients (87 percent) and unilaterally in an additional 10 patients (98 percent). Four (0.71 percent) transmural ureteral injuries were identified. Two surgical injuries (0.43 percent) occurred in the 469 patients without prophylactic catheter placement (95 percent confidence interval = 0.00549-0.0153). Two injuries (2.2 percent), consisting of one surgical injury and one iatrogenic injury directly related to catheter placement, occurred in the 92 patients with prophylactic catheters (95 percent confidence interval = 0.00262-0.0764). This latter injury resulting from catheter placement represents a rate of 1.1 percent per patient and 0.55 percent per ureteral catheterization attempted. Using a 24-hour staged removal, these catheterizations were associated with a 0 percent incidence of reflux anuria.

Conclusions: Experienced surgeons requested prophylactic ureteral catheter placement in 16.4 percent of their sigmoid and rectosigmoid colectomies. The risk of ureteral injury (1.1 percent) as a direct result of catheter insertion is small, but not insignificant. Prophylactic ureteral catheters do not assure the prevention of transmural ureteral injuries, but may assist in their immediate recognition.

PubMed Disclaimer

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources