The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

A meta-analysis comparing suprapubic and transurethral catheterization for bladder drainage after abdominal surgery

Mcphail, M.J.W., Bu-Hilal, M. and Johnson, C.D. (2006) A meta-analysis comparing suprapubic and transurethral catheterization for bladder drainage after abdominal surgery British Journal of Surgery, 93, (9), pp. 1038-1044. (doi:10.1002/bjs.5424).

Record type: Article


Background: Although bladder drainage is widely used for general surgical patients undergoing laparotomy, there is little consensus on whether suprapubic or transurethral catheterization is better.
Method: A systematic database search was undertaken to find all studies of suprapubic catheterization. Randomized controlled trials were identified for inclusion. Endpoints for analysis were bacteriuria, patient satisfaction and recatheterization rates. A meta-analysis was performed using fixed-effect or random-effect models as appropriate, depending on heterogeneity.
Results: After abdominal surgery, transurethral catheterization is associated with significant bacteriuria (relative risk (RR) = 2·02, P < 0·001, 95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 1·34 to 3·04) and pain or discomfort (RR = 2·94, P = 0·004, 95 per cent c.i. 1·41 to 6·14). Recatheterization rates using the transurethral method were not increased significantly (RR = 1·97, P = 0·213, 95 per cent c.i. 0·68 to 5·74) with heterogeneity between studies.
Conclusion: The suprapubic route for bladder drainage in general surgery is more acceptable to patients and reduces microbiological morbidity.

Full text not available from this repository.

More information

Published date: 27 June 2006
Keywords: risk, patient, randomized controlled-trial, time, bacteriuria, general surgical patients, model, urethral catheterization, abdominal-surgery, transurethral catheterization, metaanalysis


Local EPrints ID: 62835
PURE UUID: 4aeb0ddb-7091-470e-8733-eb0ab4edac0f

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 11 Sep 2008
Last modified: 17 Jul 2017 14:19

Export record


Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton:

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.