Implications of Foley catheterization in children with perforated appendicitis
Abstract Background We treat patients after appendectomy for perforated appendicitis with patient controlled analgesia (PCA) using a background continuous dose. We usually place urinary catheters in these patients because of concerns of urinary retention. The objective of the present study was to de...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of surgical research 2013-09, Vol.184 (1), p.337-340 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 340 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 337 |
container_title | The Journal of surgical research |
container_volume | 184 |
creator | Thomas, Priscilla, MD Knott, E. Marty, DO, PhD Sharp, Nicole E., MD St. Peter, Shawn D., MD |
description | Abstract Background We treat patients after appendectomy for perforated appendicitis with patient controlled analgesia (PCA) using a background continuous dose. We usually place urinary catheters in these patients because of concerns of urinary retention. The objective of the present study was to determine the rate of urinary retention in this patient population when a catheter was not used or was removed before the continuous PCA infusion was discontinued. Methods We performed a retrospective review of all patients who had received PCA postoperatively for perforated appendicitis from December 2008 to May 2011. The demographics, need for replacement of a Foley catheter, number of recorded nursing calls to physicians, and the incidence of urinary tract infection was recorded. Patients who had received a urinary catheter intraoperatively were compared with those who had not. Subgroups were also created according to whether the patients with a Foley catheter had undergone removal of their catheter before or after cessation of the continuous PCA infusion. Results Of 242 patients, 20 (8.3%) did not have a catheter postoperatively, 1 of whom required a catheter because of retention. Of the 222 patients who started with a catheter, 2 required reinsertion for retention ( P = 0.59). Age, gender, and body mass index were similar for patients with and without a catheter. In the subgroup analysis, of the patients with a catheter, 48 (21.6%) had their catheter removed before discontinuation of the continuous PCA infusion and none required Foley catheter replacement. Of the 174 patients whose catheters were removed after discontinuation of the continuous PCA dose, 2 required catheter replacement ( P = 0.46). A significantly higher percentage of telephone calls was generated for patients with a catheter than for patients without a Foley catheter (41.4% versus 10%, P = 0.007). No patients with a catheter developed a urinary tract infection. Conclusions Patients with a perforated appendicitis who receive a continuous PCA have a low rate of urinary retention whether or not a catheter has been placed intraoperatively. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jss.2013.05.026 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1429640385</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0022480413004782</els_id><sourcerecordid>1429640385</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-3ab5746f1540eb058a84285298149af3de9d88010596dad3ade159887c52b7ea3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1O3DAUhS1UBFPgAdigLLtJev2XOEKqVKHSIqGyANaWx77ROGTiYGeopk9fD0NZdNGVdX3PObK_Q8g5hYoCrT_3VZ9SxYDyCmQFrD4gCwqtLFXd8A9kAcBYKRSIY_IxpR7y3Db8iBwz3oi6qeWC_LxZT4O3ZvZhTEXoiusw4LbIFyucMfrfr5vCj4Vd-cFFHItffl4VE8YuRDOjK8w04ei89bNPp-SwM0PCs7fzhDxef3u4-lHe3n2_ufp6W1oBai65Wcr8go5KAbgEqYwSTEnWKipa03GHrVMKKMi2dsZx45DKVqnGSrZs0PAT8mmfO8XwvME067VPFofBjBg2SVPB2loAVzJL6V5qY0gpYqen6NcmbjUFvcOoe50x6h1GDVJnjNlz8Ra_Wa7RvTv-csuCy70A8ydfPEadrMfRovMR7axd8P-N__KP2w5-zC0MT7jF1IdNHDM9TXViGvT9rsddjZQDiEYx_gdkDpff</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1429640385</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Implications of Foley catheterization in children with perforated appendicitis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Thomas, Priscilla, MD ; Knott, E. Marty, DO, PhD ; Sharp, Nicole E., MD ; St. Peter, Shawn D., MD</creator><creatorcontrib>Thomas, Priscilla, MD ; Knott, E. Marty, DO, PhD ; Sharp, Nicole E., MD ; St. Peter, Shawn D., MD</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Background We treat patients after appendectomy for perforated appendicitis with patient controlled analgesia (PCA) using a background continuous dose. We usually place urinary catheters in these patients because of concerns of urinary retention. The objective of the present study was to determine the rate of urinary retention in this patient population when a catheter was not used or was removed before the continuous PCA infusion was discontinued. Methods We performed a retrospective review of all patients who had received PCA postoperatively for perforated appendicitis from December 2008 to May 2011. The demographics, need for replacement of a Foley catheter, number of recorded nursing calls to physicians, and the incidence of urinary tract infection was recorded. Patients who had received a urinary catheter intraoperatively were compared with those who had not. Subgroups were also created according to whether the patients with a Foley catheter had undergone removal of their catheter before or after cessation of the continuous PCA infusion. Results Of 242 patients, 20 (8.3%) did not have a catheter postoperatively, 1 of whom required a catheter because of retention. Of the 222 patients who started with a catheter, 2 required reinsertion for retention ( P = 0.59). Age, gender, and body mass index were similar for patients with and without a catheter. In the subgroup analysis, of the patients with a catheter, 48 (21.6%) had their catheter removed before discontinuation of the continuous PCA infusion and none required Foley catheter replacement. Of the 174 patients whose catheters were removed after discontinuation of the continuous PCA dose, 2 required catheter replacement ( P = 0.46). A significantly higher percentage of telephone calls was generated for patients with a catheter than for patients without a Foley catheter (41.4% versus 10%, P = 0.007). No patients with a catheter developed a urinary tract infection. Conclusions Patients with a perforated appendicitis who receive a continuous PCA have a low rate of urinary retention whether or not a catheter has been placed intraoperatively.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-4804</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1095-8673</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2013.05.026</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23746765</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Analgesia, Patient-Controlled - adverse effects ; Appendectomy ; Appendicitis ; Appendicitis - epidemiology ; Appendicitis - surgery ; Appendicitis - therapy ; Child ; Children ; Female ; Foley catheter ; Humans ; Laparoscopy ; Male ; Pain, Postoperative - drug therapy ; Postoperative Complications - epidemiology ; Postoperative Complications - etiology ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Factors ; Surgery ; Urinary Catheterization - statistics & numerical data ; Urinary retention ; Urinary Retention - chemically induced ; Urinary Retention - epidemiology ; Urinary Retention - prevention & control</subject><ispartof>The Journal of surgical research, 2013-09, Vol.184 (1), p.337-340</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2013 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-3ab5746f1540eb058a84285298149af3de9d88010596dad3ade159887c52b7ea3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-3ab5746f1540eb058a84285298149af3de9d88010596dad3ade159887c52b7ea3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022480413004782$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23746765$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Thomas, Priscilla, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Knott, E. Marty, DO, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sharp, Nicole E., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>St. Peter, Shawn D., MD</creatorcontrib><title>Implications of Foley catheterization in children with perforated appendicitis</title><title>The Journal of surgical research</title><addtitle>J Surg Res</addtitle><description>Abstract Background We treat patients after appendectomy for perforated appendicitis with patient controlled analgesia (PCA) using a background continuous dose. We usually place urinary catheters in these patients because of concerns of urinary retention. The objective of the present study was to determine the rate of urinary retention in this patient population when a catheter was not used or was removed before the continuous PCA infusion was discontinued. Methods We performed a retrospective review of all patients who had received PCA postoperatively for perforated appendicitis from December 2008 to May 2011. The demographics, need for replacement of a Foley catheter, number of recorded nursing calls to physicians, and the incidence of urinary tract infection was recorded. Patients who had received a urinary catheter intraoperatively were compared with those who had not. Subgroups were also created according to whether the patients with a Foley catheter had undergone removal of their catheter before or after cessation of the continuous PCA infusion. Results Of 242 patients, 20 (8.3%) did not have a catheter postoperatively, 1 of whom required a catheter because of retention. Of the 222 patients who started with a catheter, 2 required reinsertion for retention ( P = 0.59). Age, gender, and body mass index were similar for patients with and without a catheter. In the subgroup analysis, of the patients with a catheter, 48 (21.6%) had their catheter removed before discontinuation of the continuous PCA infusion and none required Foley catheter replacement. Of the 174 patients whose catheters were removed after discontinuation of the continuous PCA dose, 2 required catheter replacement ( P = 0.46). A significantly higher percentage of telephone calls was generated for patients with a catheter than for patients without a Foley catheter (41.4% versus 10%, P = 0.007). No patients with a catheter developed a urinary tract infection. Conclusions Patients with a perforated appendicitis who receive a continuous PCA have a low rate of urinary retention whether or not a catheter has been placed intraoperatively.</description><subject>Analgesia, Patient-Controlled - adverse effects</subject><subject>Appendectomy</subject><subject>Appendicitis</subject><subject>Appendicitis - epidemiology</subject><subject>Appendicitis - surgery</subject><subject>Appendicitis - therapy</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Children</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Foley catheter</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Laparoscopy</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Pain, Postoperative - drug therapy</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - etiology</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Urinary Catheterization - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Urinary retention</subject><subject>Urinary Retention - chemically induced</subject><subject>Urinary Retention - epidemiology</subject><subject>Urinary Retention - prevention & control</subject><issn>0022-4804</issn><issn>1095-8673</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc1O3DAUhS1UBFPgAdigLLtJev2XOEKqVKHSIqGyANaWx77ROGTiYGeopk9fD0NZdNGVdX3PObK_Q8g5hYoCrT_3VZ9SxYDyCmQFrD4gCwqtLFXd8A9kAcBYKRSIY_IxpR7y3Db8iBwz3oi6qeWC_LxZT4O3ZvZhTEXoiusw4LbIFyucMfrfr5vCj4Vd-cFFHItffl4VE8YuRDOjK8w04ei89bNPp-SwM0PCs7fzhDxef3u4-lHe3n2_ufp6W1oBai65Wcr8go5KAbgEqYwSTEnWKipa03GHrVMKKMi2dsZx45DKVqnGSrZs0PAT8mmfO8XwvME067VPFofBjBg2SVPB2loAVzJL6V5qY0gpYqen6NcmbjUFvcOoe50x6h1GDVJnjNlz8Ra_Wa7RvTv-csuCy70A8ydfPEadrMfRovMR7axd8P-N__KP2w5-zC0MT7jF1IdNHDM9TXViGvT9rsddjZQDiEYx_gdkDpff</recordid><startdate>20130901</startdate><enddate>20130901</enddate><creator>Thomas, Priscilla, MD</creator><creator>Knott, E. Marty, DO, PhD</creator><creator>Sharp, Nicole E., MD</creator><creator>St. Peter, Shawn D., MD</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130901</creationdate><title>Implications of Foley catheterization in children with perforated appendicitis</title><author>Thomas, Priscilla, MD ; Knott, E. Marty, DO, PhD ; Sharp, Nicole E., MD ; St. Peter, Shawn D., MD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-3ab5746f1540eb058a84285298149af3de9d88010596dad3ade159887c52b7ea3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Analgesia, Patient-Controlled - adverse effects</topic><topic>Appendectomy</topic><topic>Appendicitis</topic><topic>Appendicitis - epidemiology</topic><topic>Appendicitis - surgery</topic><topic>Appendicitis - therapy</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Children</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Foley catheter</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Laparoscopy</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Pain, Postoperative - drug therapy</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - etiology</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Urinary Catheterization - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Urinary retention</topic><topic>Urinary Retention - chemically induced</topic><topic>Urinary Retention - epidemiology</topic><topic>Urinary Retention - prevention & control</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Thomas, Priscilla, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Knott, E. Marty, DO, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sharp, Nicole E., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>St. Peter, Shawn D., MD</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Journal of surgical research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Thomas, Priscilla, MD</au><au>Knott, E. Marty, DO, PhD</au><au>Sharp, Nicole E., MD</au><au>St. Peter, Shawn D., MD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Implications of Foley catheterization in children with perforated appendicitis</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of surgical research</jtitle><addtitle>J Surg Res</addtitle><date>2013-09-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>184</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>337</spage><epage>340</epage><pages>337-340</pages><issn>0022-4804</issn><eissn>1095-8673</eissn><abstract>Abstract Background We treat patients after appendectomy for perforated appendicitis with patient controlled analgesia (PCA) using a background continuous dose. We usually place urinary catheters in these patients because of concerns of urinary retention. The objective of the present study was to determine the rate of urinary retention in this patient population when a catheter was not used or was removed before the continuous PCA infusion was discontinued. Methods We performed a retrospective review of all patients who had received PCA postoperatively for perforated appendicitis from December 2008 to May 2011. The demographics, need for replacement of a Foley catheter, number of recorded nursing calls to physicians, and the incidence of urinary tract infection was recorded. Patients who had received a urinary catheter intraoperatively were compared with those who had not. Subgroups were also created according to whether the patients with a Foley catheter had undergone removal of their catheter before or after cessation of the continuous PCA infusion. Results Of 242 patients, 20 (8.3%) did not have a catheter postoperatively, 1 of whom required a catheter because of retention. Of the 222 patients who started with a catheter, 2 required reinsertion for retention ( P = 0.59). Age, gender, and body mass index were similar for patients with and without a catheter. In the subgroup analysis, of the patients with a catheter, 48 (21.6%) had their catheter removed before discontinuation of the continuous PCA infusion and none required Foley catheter replacement. Of the 174 patients whose catheters were removed after discontinuation of the continuous PCA dose, 2 required catheter replacement ( P = 0.46). A significantly higher percentage of telephone calls was generated for patients with a catheter than for patients without a Foley catheter (41.4% versus 10%, P = 0.007). No patients with a catheter developed a urinary tract infection. Conclusions Patients with a perforated appendicitis who receive a continuous PCA have a low rate of urinary retention whether or not a catheter has been placed intraoperatively.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>23746765</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jss.2013.05.026</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-4804 |
ispartof | The Journal of surgical research, 2013-09, Vol.184 (1), p.337-340 |
issn | 0022-4804 1095-8673 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1429640385 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Analgesia, Patient-Controlled - adverse effects Appendectomy Appendicitis Appendicitis - epidemiology Appendicitis - surgery Appendicitis - therapy Child Children Female Foley catheter Humans Laparoscopy Male Pain, Postoperative - drug therapy Postoperative Complications - epidemiology Postoperative Complications - etiology Retrospective Studies Risk Factors Surgery Urinary Catheterization - statistics & numerical data Urinary retention Urinary Retention - chemically induced Urinary Retention - epidemiology Urinary Retention - prevention & control |
title | Implications of Foley catheterization in children with perforated appendicitis |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T09%3A14%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Implications%20of%20Foley%20catheterization%20in%20children%20with%20perforated%20appendicitis&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20surgical%20research&rft.au=Thomas,%20Priscilla,%20MD&rft.date=2013-09-01&rft.volume=184&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=337&rft.epage=340&rft.pages=337-340&rft.issn=0022-4804&rft.eissn=1095-8673&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jss.2013.05.026&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1429640385%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1429640385&rft_id=info:pmid/23746765&rft_els_id=S0022480413004782&rfr_iscdi=true |