Journals / Üroloji Bülteni / 2003 / Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 1

Differences in the approach to the routes of catheterization in acute urinary retention among urologists

Ürologların akut idrar retansiyonunda uygulanan kateterizasyon yöntemlerine yaklaşım farklılıkları

Pages
35–38
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: As the amount of practice tind experience increases among urologists, the preference of catheterization shifts in favor of the suprapubic route based on Considerations for complications and quality of life.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To examine differences between urologists in their choice of routes of catheteriiation if they develops acute urinary retention.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: A questionnaire made up of six questions was given to 213 urologists randomly chosen from various hos-pitals.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: As the amount of practice tind experience increases among urologists, the preference of catheterization shifts in favor of the suprapubic route based on Considerations for complications and quality of life.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Üriner retansiyon · Prostat hiperplazisi · Anketler

Abstract

Objective: To examine differences between urologists in their choice of routes of catheteriiation if they develops acute urinary retention. Methods: A questionnaire made up of six questions was given to 213 urologists randomly chosen from various hos-pitals. The questions were directed towards obtaining information concerning the preferred route of catheterisation and the reasons of this choice, in the event of a possible acute urinary retention in themselves. Seventy eight of the participants were residents who had completed their first year and 135 were specialists. Results: The median ages of the residents and specialists were 28 (25-34) and 38 (30-60) years, respectively. While only 1O (%12) of the residents preferred suprapubic catheterization as the first choice, 48 (61%) chose transurethral catheterization, and 20 (25%) of them, left the decision to their colleagues. In the group of specialists, 74 (55%) urologists chose the suprapubic route, 38 (28%) preferred transurethral catheterization, and 13 (10%) would have catheterised themselves, while 10 urologists (7%) stated they would leave the choice to their colleagues. There was a significant difference between the residents and specialists with regard to the choice of suprapubic and transurethral approaches (p< 0.0001). The preferences of the urologists were effected by professional experience, Understanding of the complications of catheterization and effects on the quality of life. Conclusion: As the amount of practice tind experience increases among urologists, the preference of catheterization shifts in favor of the suprapubic route based on Considerations for complications and quality of life.

Özet

Amaç: Ülkemizdeki ürologların akut idrar retansiyonunda uygulanan kateterizasyon yöntemlerine yaklaşım farklılıklarını araştırmak. Yöntem: Altı sorudan oluşan anket değişik hastanelerden rastgele seçilen 213 ürologa uygulandı. Sorular, ürologların kendilerinin akut idrar retansiyonuna girmeleri durumunda, tercih edecekleri kateterizasyon yöntemi ve tercihlerinin nedenleri hakkında bilgi toplamaya yönelikti. Katılanların 78'i uzmanlık eğitiminin ilk yılını doldurmuş üroloji asistanları, 135'i ise uzmanlardı. Bulgular: Asistan ve uzmanların yaş ortalaması sırası ile 28 yıl (25-34) ve 38 yıl (30-60) idi. Asistanların yalnızca 10'u (%12) suprapubik kateterizasyonu ilk seçenek olarak tercih ederken, 48'i (%61) transüretral kateterizasyonu seçti, 20'si (%25) ise uygulamayı meslektaşının kararına bıraktı. Uzmanların 74'ü (%55) suprapubik, 38'i (%28) transüretral, 13'ü (%10) kendi kendilerini kateterize etmeyi seçerken, 10'u (%7) karan meslektaşına bırakacağını belirtti. Asistan ve uzmanlar arasındaki suprapubik ve transüretral yaklaşımdaki farklılık belirgindi (p< 0.0001). Meslektaşın deneyimi, kateter uygulamasının hayat kalitesi üzerine etkisi ve komplikasyonlannın ürologların tercihini etkilediği görüldü. Sonuç: Ürologlar arasında uzmanlık süreci ve deneyim arttıkça, komplikasyonlar ve hayat kalitesi düşünülerek, tercih oranının suprapubik kateter lehine değiştiği gözlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜRDAL, M., KAYA, C., KİREÇÇİ, S., TÜKEN, M., KÜÇÜK, E. V., KARAMAN, M. İ. (2003). Differences in the approach to the routes of catheterization in acute urinary retention among urologists. Üroloji Bülteni, Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 1, 35–38. https://ajindex.com/articles/338873

References (7)

  1. Holtgrewe HL, Mebust WK, Dowd JB et al. Transurethral prostatectomy: Practice aspects of the dominant operation in American Urology. J Urol, 141: 248,1989
  2. Horgan AF, Prasad B, Waldron DJ et al. Acute urinary retention. Comparison of suprapubic and urethral catheterisation. Br J Urol, 70: 149,1992
  3. Vandoni RE, Lironi A, Tschantz P. Bacteriuria during urinary tract catheterization: Suprapubic versus urethral route: a prospective randomized trial. Acta Chir Belg, 94: 12,1994
  4. Ichsan J, Hunt DR: Suprapubic catheters: a comparison of suprapubic versus urethral catheters in the treatment of acute urinary retention. Aust N Z J Surg, 57: 33,1987
  5. Hastie KJ, Dickinson AJ, Ahmad R et al. Acute retention of urine: Is trial without catheter justified? J R Coll Surg Edinb, 35: 225,1990
  6. Motiwala HG. Unusual complication of suprapubic cystostomy. A case report. Int Urol Nephrol, 26:419, 1994
  7. Mehta A, Makris A, Saad A et al. Incisional hernia after suprapubic catheter insertion. BJU Int, 84: 526, 1999.