Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Risk Factors for Postoperative Urinary Retention After Lumbar Fusion Surgery: Anesthetics and Surgical Approach.
Heard, Jeremy C; Lee, Yunsoo; Lambrechts, Mark J; Ezeonu, Teeto; Dees, Azra N; Wiafe, Bright M; Wright, Justin; Toci, Gregory R; Schwenk, Eric S; Canseco, Jose A; Kaye, Ian D; Kurd, Mark F; Hilibrand, Alan S; Vaccaro, Alexander R; Schroeder, Gregory D; Kepler, Christopher K.
  • Heard JC; From the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA (Heard, Lee, Ezeonu, Dees, Wiafe, Wright, Toci, Canseco, Kaye, Kurd, Hilibrand, Vaccaro, Schroeder, and Kepler), the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University, St. Louis, MO (Lambrechts), and the Department Anesthesiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA (Schwenk).
J Am Acad Orthop Surg ; 31(23): 1189-1196, 2023 Dec 01.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37695724
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

Postoperative urinary retention (POUR) after lumbar fusion surgery can lead to longer hospital stays and thus increased risk of developing other postoperative complications. Therefore, we aimed to determine the relationship between POUR and (1) surgical approach and (2) anesthetic agents, including sugammadex and glycopyrrolate.

METHODS:

After institutional review board approval, L4-S1 single-level lumbar fusion surgeries between 2018 and 2021 were identified. A 31 propensity match of patients with POUR to those without was conducted, controlling for patient age, sex, diabetes status, body mass index, smoking status, history of benign prostatic hyperplasia, and the number of levels decompressed. POUR was defined as documented straight catheterization yielding >400 mL. We compared patient demographic, surgical, anesthetic, and postoperative characteristics. A bivariant analysis and backward multivariable stepwise logistic regression analysis ( P -value < 0.200) were performed. Significance was set to P < 0.05.

RESULTS:

Of the 899 patients identified, 51 met the criteria for POUR and were matched to 153 patients. No notable differences were observed between groups based on demographic or surgical characteristics. On bivariant analysis, patients who developed POUR were more likely to have been given succinylcholine (13.7% vs. 3.92%, P = 0.020) as an induction agent. The independent predictors of POUR identified by multivariable analysis included the use of succinylcholine {odds ratio (OR), 4.37 (confidence interval [CI], 1.26 to 16.46), P = 0.022} and reduced postoperative activity (OR, 0.99 [CI, 0.993 to 0.999], P = 0.049). Factors protective against POUR included using sugammadex as a reversal agent (OR, 0.38 [CI, 0.17 to 0.82], P = 0.017). The stepwise regression did not identify an anterior surgical approach as a notable predictor of POUR.

CONCLUSION:

We demonstrate that sugammadex for anesthesia reversal was protective against POUR while succinylcholine and reduced postoperative activity were associated with the development of POUR. In addition, we found no difference between the anterior or posterior approach to spinal fusion in the development of POUR.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Retención Urinaria / Anestésicos Tipo de estudio: Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Retención Urinaria / Anestésicos Tipo de estudio: Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article