ReviewJournal of nursing management2026
Urinary Retention Complications Following Pelvic Floor Reconstructive Surgery: Prevention and Management Strategies Based on Evidence Synthesis.
Review in Journal of nursing management, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Urinary Retention Complications Following Pelvic Floor Reconstructive Surgery: Prevention and Management Strategies Based on Evidence Synthesis.Journal of nursing management · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo evaluate and summarise the best evidence on the prevention and management of postoperative urinary retention (POUR) following pelvic floor reconstruction and provide an evidence-based foundation for clinical practice.
methodsAdhering to the top-down principle of the 6S model of evidence-based resources, all evidence from domestic and international databases and websites on the prevention and management of POUR after pelvic floor reconstruction, including clinical decisions, evidence-based guidelines, evidence summaries, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and expert consensus statements, was systematically searched from the inception of each database to May 9, 2024. Quality assessment, evidence extraction and summarisation were performed by two researchers. This study was registered with the Evidence-Based Nursing Center of Fudan University (registration number: ES20244725).
resultsTwenty-one studies were included and used to develop 26 evidence-based recommendations, which were categorised into five areas: risk assessment and information, preventive measures, early identification, management strategies and follow-up management. Preoperative evaluation should include the patient's urination status, postvoid residual (PVR) and risk factors for POUR, without the routine need for urodynamic testing. During surgery, excessive separation of the urethra should be minimised, and the sling or mesh should be kept tension-free. Catheters should be removed 24-48 h post-operatively, followed by a timely voiding trial, with retrograde voiding trials recommended. Intermittent catheterisation or indwelling catheterisation is considered the primary treatment option for POUR. If necessary, sling or mesh loosening may be performed, while sling or mesh release should be approached with caution, and urethral dilation is not recommended. A follow-up assessment of urination status is advised at least once within 6 weeks postsurgery.
conclusionThese 26 pieces of evidence provide guidance for healthcare professionals in standardising the management of POUR following pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. However, because this evidence comes from different countries, healthcare professionals are encouraged to apply it in specific clinical contexts to optimise patient outcomes. Future research should focus more on risk assessment tools and specific preventive measures for POUR following pelvic floor surgery.
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.