Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38954131›Full record

Trial reportTechniques in coloproctology2024

Suprapubic versus transurethral catheterization for bladder drainage in male rectal cancer surgery (GRECCAR10), a randomized clinical trial.

B Trilling, F Tidadini, Z Lakkis, M Jafari, A Germain, E Rullier, J Lefevre, J J Tuech, A Kartheuser, D Leonard and 17 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Techniques in coloproctology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02922647 (Suprapubic Versus Transurethral Catheterization After Rectal Resection With Low Anastomosis for Cancer in Males), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02922647 nacompletednot on this map

Suprapubic Versus Transurethral Catheterization After Rectal Resection With Low Anastomosis for Cancer in Males

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Hospital, GrenobleRan2016 to 2021Enrolled240ConditionsInfection, CancerArmssuprapubic catheterization, transurethral catheterization
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

27 authors.

B TrillingColorectal Unit, Department of Surgery, Grenoble Alpes University Hospital, 38000, Grenoble, France.
F TidadiniColorectal Unit, Department of Surgery, Grenoble Alpes University Hospital, 38000, Grenoble, France.
Z LakkisDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Besancon University Hospital, Besancon, France.
M JafariDepartment of Digestive and Oncological Surgery, Oscar Lambret Center, Lille, France.
A GermainDigestive Surgery Department, University Hospital of Nancy, Nancy, France.
E RullierDigestive Surgery Department, Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, France.
J LefevreDigestive Surgery Department, Saint-Antoine Hospital, APHP, Paris, France.
J J TuechDigestive Surgery Department, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France.
A KartheuserDepartment of Medical Oncology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, Brussels, Belgium.
D LeonardDepartment of Medical Oncology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, Brussels, Belgium.
M PrudhommeDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Nîmes, University Hospital, Nîmes, France.
G PiessenDigestive Surgery Department, University Hospital of Lille, Lille, France.
J M RegimbeauDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Amiens University Hospital, Amiens, France.
E CotteDigestive Surgery Department, Lyon-Sud University Hospital, Pierre-Bénite, France.
D DuprezDigestive Surgery Department, Annecy-Genevois Hospital, Metz-Tessy, France.
B BadicDepartment of General and Digestive Surgery, Brest, University Hospital, Brest, France.
Y PanisDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Beaujon Hospital, AP-HP, Clichy, France.
M RivoireDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Léon Bérard Center, Lyon, France.
B MeunierDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Digestive Surgery, Rennes University Hospital, Rennes, France.
G PortierDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Toulouse Purpan University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
J L BossonDepartment of Medical Information, Grenoble-Alpes University Hospital, Grenoble, France.
A VilotitchDepartment of Medical Information, Grenoble-Alpes University Hospital, Grenoble, France.
A FooteColorectal Unit, Department of Surgery, Grenoble Alpes University Hospital, 38000, Grenoble, France.
Y CasparLaboratory of Bacteriology, Grenoble-Alpes University Hospital, Grenoble, France.
P RouanetSurgical Oncology Department, Montpellier Cancer Institute (ICM), Montpellier, France.
J L FaucheronColorectal Unit, Department of Surgery, Grenoble Alpes University Hospital, 38000, Grenoble, France. JLFaucheron@chu-grenoble.fr.ORCID 0000-0002-0837-2277
GRECCAR study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBladder drainage is systematically used in rectal cancer surgery; however, the optimal type of drainage, transurethral catheterization (TUC) or suprapubic catheterization (SPC), is still controversial. The aim was to compare the rates of urinary tract infection on the fourth postoperative day (POD4) between TUC and SPC, after rectal cancer surgery regardless of the day of removal of the urinary drain.

methodsThis randomized clinical trial in 19 expert colorectal surgery centers in France and Belgium was performed between October 2016 and October 2019 and included 240 men (with normal or subnormal voiding function) undergoing mesorectal excision with low anastomosis for rectal cancer. Patients were followed at postoperative days 4, 30, and 180.

resultsIn 208 patients (median age 66 years [IQR 58-71]) randomized to TUC (n = 99) or SPC (n = 109), the rate of urinary infection at POD4 was not significantly different whatever the type of drainage (11/99 (11.1%) vs. 8/109 (7.3%), 95% CI, - 4.2% to 11.7%; p = 0.35). There was significantly more pyuria in the TUC group (79/99 (79.0%) vs. (60/109 (60.9%), 95% CI, 5.7-30.0%; p = 0.004). No difference in bacteriuria was observed between the groups. Patients in the TUC group had a shorter duration of catheterization (median 4 [2-5] vs. 4 [3-5] days; p = 0.002). Drainage complications were more frequent in the SPC group at all followup visits.

conclusionsTUC should be preferred over SPC in male patients undergoing surgery for mid and/or lower rectal cancers, owing to the lower rate of complications and shorter duration of catheterization.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02922647.

Indexed as

DrainagePostoperative ComplicationsRectal NeoplasmsUrinary CatheterizationUrinary Tract InfectionsAgedBelgiumHumansMaleMiddle AgedUrinary BladderBladder drainageRandomized clinical trialRectal cancer surgerySuprapubic catheterTransurethral catheter

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.