Despite reviewing 39 eligible trials, few firm conclusions could be reached because of the multiple comparisons considered, the small size of individual trials, and their low quality. Whether or not to use a particular policy is usually a trade-off between the risks of morbidity (especially infection) and risks of recatheterisation.
Urinary drainage following radical hysterectomy for cervical carcinoma - a pilot comparison of urethral and suprapubic routes.
Twenty-four patients who underwent radical hysterectomy and pelvic node dissection for cervical carcinoma were randomized in a pilot study to compare continuous postoperative drainage by urethral and suprapubic catheters. There were no statistically significant differences in either the duration of continuous catheter drainage before the return of spontaneous voiding or the incidence of urinary tract infection in the two groups. Power calculations reveal that 628 patients require to be entered into each arm of a future study in order to be able to detect the former difference should it exist (alpha = 0.05, beta = 0.2, difference = 16% of one s.d.) and 41 in the latter (alpha = 0.05, beta = 0.2, 92.9% urethral group had UTI, 70% suprapubic group had UTI). We conclude that differences in these objective measures of catheter efficacy and morbidity between the groups, if they exist, are clinically irrelevant. On this basis we suggest that individual gynaecological oncologists should continue to use whichever method of catheter drainage best suits their clinical practice.