ReviewJournal of the West African College of Surgeons
Comparison of post-decompressive haematuria in rapid versus gradual bladder decompression in patients with chronic urinary retention.
Review in Journal of the West African College of Surgeons. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic urinary retention (CUR) is a common urological emergency. Initial management involves the drainage of the bladder by urethral catheterisation. Relief of CUR may be associated with post-decompressive haematuria. The two primary methods of emptying the obstructed bladder are rapid and gradual emptying. The method of relief of CUR to reduce this complication has been debated for decades. Objective: To compare the risk of post-decompressive haematuria following rapid versus gradual urinary bladder decompression in patients with CUR. Materials and Methods: This was a prospective, randomised study in which patients with CUR were randomised into two groups: group A and group B. Group A had rapid urinary decompression with an 18 Fr urethral catheter attached to a urine bag, whereas group B had gradual decompression using a urethral catheter attached to an intravenous fluid-giving set, which was then attached to the urine bag. Post-decompressive haematuria in each group was assessed at designated times and documented based on a research protocol. Data Analysis and Result Presentation: Data were analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (IBM) SPSS version 21. Data were summarised by descriptive statistics. The two arms were compared for similarities in demographic variables. Continuous and categorical variables were compared using the Student's Result: Sixty patients were recruited into the study and randomised into groups A (rapid urinary decompression) and B (gradual urinary decompression) with 30 patients in each arm of the study. The mean age was 70.92 ± 13.98 years (range 20-96 years). The mean age of the patients recruited into group A was 68.50 ± 14.77 years, whereas that of group B was 73.33 ± 13.19 years. The Conclusion: The rate of haematuria is significantly higher in group A with a higher rate of blood transfusion than that of group B. Though gradual urinary decompression is cumbersome, it is recommended to reduce the rate of haematuria and blood transfusion with its associated complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.