Cost Analysis of Bladder Catheterization After Pelvic Floor Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Approximately 15-45% of female patients develop transient postoperative urinary retention (POUR) following pelvic reconstructive surgery. Catheter options for bladder drainage include transurethral indwelling catheter (TIC), intermittent self-catheterization (ISC), and suprapubic tube (SPT). Each strategy has risks and benefits; none have been shown to be clinically superior, and to date, no comprehensive comparative economic analysis has been published. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost of these different bladder catheterization strategies after transvaginal pelvic surgery. STUDY DESIGN: A Canadian universal single-payer (government funded) health system perspective was taken, and a decision tree model was constructed to evaluate the costs associated with each catheterization strategy over a 6-week horizon. Base-cases were set based on recently published clinical data of our institutions, 2 academic tertiary care centers, and based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Costs were established in consultation with process stakeholders, in addition to published values. RESULTS: The average cost calculated for management of transient POUR after outpatient pelvic reconstructive surgery was 150.69 CAD (median 154.86; interquartile range [IQR] 131.30-176.33) for TIC, 162.28 CAD (median 164.72; IQR 144.36-189.39) for ISC and 255.67 CAD (median 270.63; IQR 234.32-276.82) for SPT. In costing inpatient surgical data, the average cost calculated was 134.22 CAD (median 123.61; IQR 108.87-151.85) for TIC and 224.61 CAD (median 216.07; IQR 203.86-231.23) for SPT. CONCLUSION: TIC and ISC were found to be significantly less costly than SPT in managing transient POUR following transvaginal pelvic reconstructive surgery.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".