ArticleCureus2025
Preoperative Urine Testing in Elective Endourology Procedures: Is a Change in Practice the Need of the Hour?
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
Introduction Urine testing is routinely done preoperatively in patients undergoing elective endourology procedures to ensure that any asymptomatic bacteriuria is picked up and treated. This practice, in addition to leading to overtreatment, can also lead to unnecessary cancellations of elective procedures. With the emergence of multidrug-resistant bacteria and the implementation of stricter antibiotic stewardship programmes, it is the need of the hour to re-examine this innocuous practice. Patients and methods One hundred patients undergoing elective endourology surgery were studied retrospectively to assess current practice at a district and general hospital in Wales, UK. All patients received a single dose of intraoperative antibiotic at induction. These patients were followed up for two weeks to look for postoperative septic complications. Results Of the 100 patients, 15% had cultures done in the stipulated 2-week period preceding surgery. Seven patients (7%) developed postoperative UTIs, of which none became acutely unwell. Of the six patients with preoperative positive cultures, none developed symptomatic UTIs post-op. Only upper tract stone surgeries were managed with a preoperative antibiotic course prior to surgery. Conclusions In the era of emerging antibiotic resistance and stricter antibiotic stewardship programmes, the routine practice of treating asymptomatic bacteriuria in all patients undergoing endourology surgery needs revisiting. There is an urgent need to identify the subset of patients most at risk for post-op septic complications and use targeted perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis to overcome this risk.
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.