Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 389–394 | Cite as

Postoperative patient comfort in suprapubic drainage versus transurethral catheterization following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective randomized clinical trial

  • Nina Harke
  • Michael Godes
  • Jawid Habibzada
  • Katarina Urbanova
  • Christian Wagner
  • Henrik Zecha
  • Mustapha Addali
  • Jorn H. Witt
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the impact of the type of urinary diversion (suprapubic vs. transurethral catheterization) on patients’ postoperative pain after radical prostatectomy, development of bacteriuria and long-term functional results.

Methods

A randomized, prospective clinical trial was performed including 160 patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy after randomization into two groups: intraoperatively, a transurethral catheter (control group) or an additional suprapubic tube (with removal of the transurethral catheter in the morning of postoperative day 1; intervention group) was placed. Primary study endpoint was postoperative pain objectified by the numeric rating scale questionnaire. Secondary endpoints were bacteriuria after catheter removal and functional outcomes after up to 2 years of follow-up.

Results

There were no significant differences in demographic and perioperative data. Starting on postoperative day 2, patients in the suprapubic diversion group had significantly less pain on every time point preceding the removal of the catheter compared to the control cohort with a median overall numeric rating score on postoperative day 1–4 of 2.4 points in the transurethral versus 1.3 in the intervention group (p = 0.012). No statistical difference was found in postoperative bacteriuria and complications as well as in functional results, quality of life and incontinence rates after a median follow-up of 22 months.

Conclusions

Suprapubic drainage in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy shows significantly decreased pain levels during the catheterization period compared to the transurethral diversion without compromising long-term functional results. Intraoperative placement of a suprapubic tube should be discussed as a standard procedure for further improvement of patients’ postoperative comfort.

Keywords

Urinary drainage Urethral catheter Suprapubic tube Radical prostatectomy Discomfort 

Notes

Authors’ contribution

N. Harke was involved in data analysis and manuscript writing. M. Godes was involved in protocol/project development, data analysis and manuscript writing. J. Habibzada was involved in protocol/project development and data collection and management. C. Wagner was involved in data collection and management. H. Zecha was involved in data analysis. K. Urbanova was involved in protocol/project development, data collection and management and data analysis. M. Addali was involved in protocol/project development and data collection and management. J. H. Witt was involved in protocol/project development, data collection and management data analysis and manuscript writing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Lepor H (2005) A review of surgical techniques for radical prostatectomy. Rev Urol 7(Suppl 2):S11–S17PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lepor H, Nieder AM, Fraiman MC (2001) Early removal of urinary catheter after radical retropubic prostatectomy is both feasible and desirable. Urology 58(3):425–429CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Prasad SM, Smith ND, Catalona WJ, Sammon J, Menon M (2013) Suprapubic tube after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 189(6):2028–2030. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.03.031 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Albani JM, Zippe CD (2002) Urethral catheter removal 3 days after radical retropubic prostatectomy is feasible and desirable. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 5(4):291–295. doi: 10.1038/sj.pcan.4500601 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tan GW, Chan SP, Ho CK (2010) Is transurethral catheterisation the ideal method of bladder drainage? A survey of patient satisfaction with indwelling transurethral urinary catheters. Asian J Surg 33(1):31–36. doi: 10.1016/S1015-9584(10)60006-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Little JS Jr, Bihrle R, Foster RS (1995) Early urethral catheter removal following radical prostatectomy: a pilot study. Urology 46(3):429–431CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Patel R, Lepor H (2003) Removal of urinary catheter on postoperative day 3 or 4 after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 61(1):156–160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Niel-Weise BS, van den Broek PJ (2005) Urinary catheter policies for short-term bladder drainage in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD004203. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004203.pub2 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Djaladat H, Mehrsai A, Saraji A, Moosavi S, Djaladat Y, Pourmand G (2006) Suprapubic prostatectomy with a novel catheter. J Urol 175(6):2083–2086. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00344-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tewari A, Rao S, Mandhani A (2008) Catheter-less robotic radical prostatectomy using a custom-made synchronous anastomotic splint and vesical urinary diversion device: report of the initial series and perioperative outcomes. BJU Int 102(8):1000–1004. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07875.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Downie WW, Leatham PA, Rhind VM, Wright V, Branco JA, Anderson JA (1978) Studies with pain rating scales. Ann Rheum Dis 37(4):378–381CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Velthoven RF, Ahlering TE, Peltier A, Skarecky DW, Clayman RV (2003) Technique for laparoscopic running urethrovesical anastomosis: the single knot method. Urology 61(4):699–702CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ficarra V, Artibani W (2009) Editorial comment on: impact of percutaneous suprapubic tube drainage on patient discomfort after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 56(2):331. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.04.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Orikasa S, Kanbe K, Shirai S, Shintaku I, Kurosu S (2012) Suprapubic versus transurethral bladder drainage after radical prostatectomy: impact on patient discomfort. Int J Urol 19(6):587–590. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2012.02980.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koch MO, Nayee AH, Sloan J, Gardner T, Wahle GR, Bihrle R, Foster RS (2003) Early catheter removal after radical retropubic prostatectomy: long-term followup. J Urol 169(6):2170–2172. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000065860.16392.19 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Park R, Martin S, Goldberg JD, Lepor H (2001) Anastomotic strictures following radical prostatectomy: insights into incidence, effectiveness of intervention, effect on continence, and factors predisposing to occurrence. Urology 57(4):742–746CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krane LS, Bhandari M, Peabody JO, Menon M (2009) Impact of percutaneous suprapubic tube drainage on patient discomfort after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 56(2):325–330. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.04.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sammon JD, Trinh QD, Sukumar S, Diaz M, Simone A, Kaul S, Menon M (2012) Long-term follow-up of patients undergoing percutaneous suprapubic tube drainage after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). BJU Int 110(4):580–585. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10786.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ghani KR, Trinh QD, Sammon JD, Jeong W, Simone A, Dabaja A, Dusik S, Peabody JO, Menon M (2013) Percutaneous suprapubic tube bladder drainage after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a step-by-step guide. BJU Int 112(5):703–705. doi: 10.1111/bju.12071 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tenke P, Koves B, Johansen TE (2014) An update on prevention and treatment of catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Curr Opin Infect Dis 27(1):102–107. doi: 10.1097/QCO.0000000000000031 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bonkat G, Widmer AF, Rieken M, van der Merwe A, Braissant O, Muller G, Wyler S, Frei R, Gasser TC, Bachmann A (2013) Microbial biofilm formation and catheter-associated bacteriuria in patients with suprapubic catheterisation. World J Urol 31(3):565–571. doi: 10.1007/s00345-012-0930-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gould CV, Umscheid CA, Agarwal RK, Kuntz G, Pegues DA, Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory C (2010) Guideline for prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections 2009. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 31(4):319–326. doi: 10.1086/651091 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prasad SM, Large MC, Patel AR, Famakinwa O, Galocy RM, Karrison T, Shalhav AL, Zagaja GP (2014) Early removal of urethral catheter with suprapubic tube drainage versus urethral catheter drainage alone after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 192(1):89–95. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.01.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Martinschek A, Pfalzgraf D, Rafail B, Ritter M, Heinrich E, Trojan L (2015) Transurethral versus suprapubic catheter at robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective randomized trial with 1-year follow-up. World J Urol. doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1678-1 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nina Harke
    • 1
  • Michael Godes
    • 1
  • Jawid Habibzada
    • 1
  • Katarina Urbanova
    • 1
  • Christian Wagner
    • 1
  • Henrik Zecha
    • 1
  • Mustapha Addali
    • 1
  • Jorn H. Witt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Urologic Oncology – Prostate Center NorthwestSt. Antonius HospitalGronauGermany

Personalised recommendations