Bladder Care Following Benign Non-Hysterectomy Gynecological Laparoscopy: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: To compare rates of urinary retention and postoperative urinary tract infection between women with immediate versus delayed removal of indwelling catheter following benign non-hysterectomy gynecological laparoscopic surgery. Design: This randomized clinical trial was conducted between February 2012 and December 2019, with follow-up to six weeks, in two university-affiliated hospitals in Sydney, Australia. Population: Study participants were 693 women over 18 years of age, undergoing non-hysterectomy laparoscopy for benign gynecological conditions, excluding pelvic floor or concomitant bowel surgery. Methods: 355 participants were randomized to immediate, and 338 to delayed removal of urinary catheter. Main Outcome Measures: The co-primary outcomes were urinary retention (assessed by trial of void and need to re-catheterize) and urinary tract infection. Secondary outcomes included readmission, analgesia requirements, duration of hospitalization and validated bladder function questionnaires. Results: Urinary retention for participants in the immediate removal group was statistically higher at 8.2% (95% CI: 5.7% to 11.4%) vs. 4.2% (95% CI: 2.7% to 7.2%) in the delayed removal group (p=.03). There was no statistically significant difference in the rates of urinary tract infection between the groups at 7.2% (95% CI:4.7% to 10.8%) in the delayed group vs. 4.7% (95% CI: 2.8% to 7.8%) in the immediate group. Conclusions: Rates of urinary retention and urinary tract infection following non-hysterectomy benign gynecological laparoscopy are low. There is a small increased risk of urinary retention with immediate compared with delayed removal of urinary catheter. These findings can be used to counsel patients regarding postoperative bladder care.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".