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
Review
. 1998 Dec;52(6):1004-8.
doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(98)00382-3.

Prophylactic ureteral catheterization in gynecologic surgery

Affiliations
Review

Prophylactic ureteral catheterization in gynecologic surgery

K Kuno et al. Urology. 1998 Dec.

Abstract

Objectives: To examine the frequency of ureteral catheter usage, its efficacy in preventing injury, and related complications, because the preoperative routine placement of ureteral catheters as a prophylactic measure to prevent ureteral injury is controversial.

Methods: All major gynecologic operations performed between January 1992 and December 1994 were identified. All gynecologic procedures that were preceded by ureteral catheter placement were also identified. A data base maintained by the Department of Quality Management allowed identification of all urinary tract complications and ureteral injuries. Four categories of surgery were analyzed: exploratory laparotomy with catheters, exploratory laparotomy without catheters, operative laparoscopy with catheters, and operative laparoscopy without catheters. The medical records of all patients with urinary tract complications were reviewed.

Results: Bilateral prophylactic ureteral catheterization was performed in 469 (15.3%) of 3071 patients. A ureteral injury occurred in 4 (0.13%) of 3071 patients. All four ureteral injuries (0.17%) occurred among 2338 patients who underwent exploratory laparotomy. None of the 733 patients who underwent operative laparoscopy suffered ureteral injury. The incidence of ureteral injury in patients who had ureteral catheters placed before exploratory laparotomy was 2 (0.62%) of 322. Two (0.10%) of 2016 patients who did not have prophylactic ureteral catheters suffered a ureteral injury. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of ureteral injury between patients who did and patients who did not undergo ureteral catheterization (P=0.094).

Conclusions: The use of prophylactic ureteral catheters did not affect the rate of ureteral injury in our patients. The very low incidence of ureteral injury among our patients is attributed mainly to meticulous surgical technique.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources