Retrograde Bladder Filling After Outpatient Gynecologic Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and meta-analyze randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing postoperative bladder retrofilling to passive filling after outpatient gynecologic surgery to evaluate effects on postoperative outcomes. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 1947 to August 2020. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers screened 1,465 articles. We included RCTs that compared postoperative bladder retrofilling to passive filling in patients who underwent outpatient gynecologic surgery by any approach. The primary outcome was the time to first void. Secondary outcomes included time to discharge, postoperative urinary retention, urinary tract infection, and patient satisfaction. Mean differences and relative risks (RRs) were calculated for the meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: We included eight studies with 1,173 patients. Bladder retrofilling in the operating room resulted in a significant decrease in the time to first void (mean difference -33.5 minutes; 95% CI -49.1 to -17.9, 4 studies, 403 patients) and time to discharge (mean difference -32.0 minutes; 95% CI -51.5 to -12.6, eight studies, 1,164 patients). Bladder retrofilling did not shorten time to discharge when performed in the postanesthetic care unit (mean difference -14.8 min; 95% CI -62.6 to 32.9, three studies, 258 patients) or after laparoscopic hysterectomy (mean difference -26.0 min; 95% CI -56.5 to 4.5, five studies, 657 patients). There were no differences in postoperative urinary retention (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.45-1.30, five studies, 910 patients) or risk of urinary tract infection between the retrofill and passive fill groups (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.14-1.77, four studies, 387 patients). Patient satisfaction was comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: Retrofilling the bladder in the operating room after outpatient gynecologic surgery modestly reduces the time to first void and discharge with no increase in adverse events. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42020203692.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".