ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2026
Home Removal of Urinary Catheters After Pelvic Floor Reconstruction Surgery.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThis study is aimed at comparing home with hospital removal of urinary catheters after surgical correction of pelvic floor disorders.
methodsThis is a retrospective cohort study at a single urogynecology practice (1 May 2020 to 30 November 2024). A total of 184 patients, age 33-86 years (mean 66.2) with a diagnosis of pelvic floor disorder underwent home removal (primary n = 31, secondary n = 34) or hospital removal (n = 153) of a urinary catheter after pelvic floor reconstructive surgery (IRB Pro2024-0473).
resultsThe incidence of urinary retention was significantly lower in the primary home-removal group (3.3% ± 3.3%, n = 1, 95% CI 0-9.8%) compared with the hospital-removal group (27.5% ± 3.6%, n = 42, 95% CI 20.3-34.6%; p = 0.004). Of those with urinary retention, most underwent home removal for a secondary void trial (n = 34, 81.0%). The incidence of catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) was increased but not statistically significantly in the primary home-removal group (22.6% ± 7.6%, 95% CI 7.0-38.2%) compared with the hospital-removal group (9.2% ± 2.3%, 95% CI 4.5-13.8%; p = 0.056). The duration of the primary hospital admission was significantly shorter for the home removal of urinary catheterization (0.3 ± 0.1 day vs 1.1 ± 0.1 day; p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in readmission (p = 0.593) or return to the operating room (p > 0.999).
conclusionsHome catheter removal after pelvic floor reconstructive surgery appears feasible in selected patients and is associated with reduced hospital utilization and lower urinary retention rates. However, a trend toward increased CAUTIs cannot be dismissed. Therefore, prospective randomized trials are needed to definitively establish safety and identify appropriate patient selection criteria before widespread adoption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42183851What 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.