Immediate versus delayed removal of urinary catheter after laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if immediate catheter removal (ICR) after laparoscopic hysterectomy is associated with similar retention outcomes compared with delayed removal (DCR). STUDY DESIGN: Non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. POPULATION: Women undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy in six hospitals in the Netherlands. METHODS: Women were randomised to ICR or DCR (between 18 and 24 hours after surgery). PRIMARY OUTCOME: The inability to void within 6 hours after catheter removal. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-five women were randomised to ICR (n = 74) and DCR (n = 81). The intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis could not demonstrate the non-inferiority of ICR: ten women with ICR could not urinate spontaneously within 6 hours compared with none in the delayed group (risk difference 13.5%, 5.6-24.8, P = 0.88). However, seven of these women could void spontaneously within 9 hours without additional intervention. Regarding the secondary outcomes, eight women from the delayed group requested earlier catheter removal because of complaints (9.9%). Three women with ICR (4.1%) had a urinary tract infection postoperatively versus eight with DCR (9.9%, risk difference -5.8%, -15.1 to 3.5, P = 0.215). Women with ICR mobilised significantly earlier (5.7 hours, 0.8-23.3 versus 21.0 hours, 1.4-29.9; P ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSION: The non-inferiority of ICR could not be demonstrated in terms of urinary retention 6 hours after procedure. However, 70% of the women with voiding difficulties could void spontaneously within 9 hours after laparoscopic hysterectomy. It is therefore questionable if all observed urinary retention cases were clinically relevant. As a result, the clinical advantages of ICR may still outweigh the risk of bladder retention and it should therefore be considered after uncomplicated laparoscopic hysterectomy. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: The advantages of immediate catheter removal after laparoscopic hysterectomy seem to outweigh the risk of bladder retention.

Prognosis in fertilisation rate and outcome in IVF cycles in patients with and without endometriosis: a population-based comparative cohort study with controls.

BACKGROUND: Subfertility occurs in 30-40% of endometriosis patients. Regarding the fertilisation rate with in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and endometriosis, conflicting data has been published. This study aimed to compare endometriosis patients to non-endometriosis cycles assessing fertilisation rates in IVF. METHODS: A population-based cohort study was conducted at the Leiden University Medical Center. IVF cycles of endometriosis patients and controls (unexplained infertility and tubal pathology) were analysed. The main outcome measurement was fertilisation rate. RESULTS: 503 IVF cycles in total, 191 in the endometriosis group and 312 in the control. The mean fertilisation rate after IVF did not differ between both groups, 64.1%±25.5 versus 63.9%±24.8 (p=0.95) respectively, independent of age and r-ASRM classification. The median number of retrieved oocytes was lower in the endometriosis group (7.0 versus 8.0 respectively, p=0.19) and showed a significant difference when corrected for age (p=0.02). When divided into age groups, the statistical effect was only seen in the group of ≤ 35 years (p=0.04). In the age group ≤35, the endometriosis group also showed significantly more surgery on the internal reproductive organs compared to the control group (p<0.001). All other outcomes did not show significant differences. CONCLUSION: Similar fertilisation rates were found in endometriosis IVF cycles compared to controls. The oocyte retrieval was lower in the endometriosis group, however this effect was only significant in the age group ≤ 35 years. All other secondary outcomes did not show significant differences. In general, endometriosis patients with an IVF indication can be counselled positively regarding the chances of becoming pregnant, and do not need a different IVF approach.