Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 432–433 | Cite as

Comparison of manual and ultrasonographic evaluation of bladder size in patients prior to laparoscopy

  • J. D. Greig
  • M. Mahadaven
  • T. G. John
  • O. J. Garden
Original Articles

Abstract

Background: Catheterization of the bladder may reduce laparoscopic complications although an enlarged bladder may be impalpable in overweight patients or following previous lower abdominal surgery.

Methods: This study assessed bladder size by manual examination and transcutaneous ultrasound (US). Consecutive patients (n=90; median age 55 years [20–85]; 61 females) undergoing laparoscopy were studied prospectively. All patients voided preoperatively and catheterization was performed if estimated US bladder volumes exceeded 300 ml.

Results: Manual assessment failed to detect bladder enlargement in any patients (sensitivity: 0%; specificity: 4.4%), whereas ultrasound identified four patients at risk of bladder injury due to unsuspected enlargement (4.4%). Three of these patients were either overweight or obese and one patient had previous lower abdominal surgery. Of 12 patients (13%) catheterized, three had or developed urinary tract infections.

Conclusions: Preoperative voiding does not guarantee bladder emptying. Manual examination does not detect bladder enlargement reliably in the obese patient. Ultrasonography may improve patient selection for catheterization.

Key words

Bladder Injury Laparoscopy Ultrasonography Manual examination 

References

  1. 1.
    Akhtar MS, Deere DM, Wright JT, MacRae KD (1985) Is bladder catheterisation really necessary before laparoscopy? Br J Obstet Gynaecol 92: 1176–1178Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bailey RW, Zucker KA, Flowers JL, Scovill WA, Graham SM, Imbembo AL (1991) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Experience with 375 consecutive patients. Ann Surg 214: 531–541Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chamberlain G, Brown JC (1978) Gynaecological laparoscopy. The report of the working party of the confidential enquiry into gynaecological laparoscopy. R Coll Obstet Gynaecol 105–153Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cuschieri A, Dubois F, Mouiel J, Mouret P, Becker H, Buess G, Trede M, Troidl H (1991) The European experience with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 161: 385–387Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deziel DJ, Millikan KW, Economou SG, Doolas A, Ko S-T, Airan MC (1993) Complications of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a national survey of 4,292 hospitals and an analysis of 77,604 cases. Am J Surg 165: 9–14Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krieger DR, Landsberg L (1990) Obesity and hypertension. In: Laragh JH, Brenner BM (eds) Hypertension: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management, Raven Press, New York, pp 1741–1743Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mangano U, Sammartino A, Cashetto S (1989) The evaluation by means of ultrasounds of bladder residue after gynaecological operations. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 10: 21–26Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nathanson LK, Shimi S, Cuschieri A (1991) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the Dundee technique. Br J Surg 78: 155–159Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reidel HH, Lehmann-Willenbrock E, Mecke H, Semm K (1988) Distribution of the incidence of various pelviscopic (laparoscopic) surgical procedures and their complication rates. A statistical analysis in West Germany 1983 up to and including 1985. Geburtschilfe Frauenheilkd 48: 791–799Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Revord JP, Opitz JL, Murtaugh P, Harrison J (1993) Determining residual urine volumes using a portable ultrasonographic device. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 74: 457–462Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. D. Greig
    • 1
  • M. Mahadaven
    • 1
  • T. G. John
    • 1
  • O. J. Garden
    • 1
  1. 1.University Department of SurgeryRoyal Infirmary of EdinburghEdinburghScotland, Great Britain

Personalised recommendations