• Maria Hälleberg Nyman, Margareta Gustafsson, Ann Langius-Eklöf, Jan-Erik Johansson, Rolf Norlin, and Lars Hagberg.
• Department of Orthopaedics, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden; School of Health and Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden. Electronic address: maria.halleberg-nyman@oru.se.
• Int J Nurs Stud. 2013 Dec 1;50(12):1589-98.

BackgroundHip surgery is associated with the risk of postoperative urinary retention. To avoid urinary retention hip surgery patients undergo urinary catheterisation. Urinary catheterisation, however, is associated with increased risk for urinary tract infection (UTI). At present, there is limited evidence for whether intermittent or indwelling urinary catheterisation is the preferred choice for short-term bladder drainage in patients undergoing hip surgery.ObjectivesThe aim of the study was to investigate differences between intermittent and indwelling urinary catheterisation in hip surgery patients in relation to nosocomial UTI and cost-effectiveness.DesignRandomised controlled trial with cost-effectiveness analysis.SettingThe study was carried out at an orthopaedic department at a Swedish University Hospital.MethodsOne hundred and seventy hip surgery patients (patients with fractures or with osteoarthritis) were randomly allocated to either intermittent or indwelling urinary catheterisation. Data collection took place at four time points: during stay in hospital, at discharge and at 4 weeks and 4 months after discharge.ResultsEighteen patients contracted nosocomial UTIs, 8 in the intermittent catheterisation group and 10 in the indwelling catheterisation group (absolute difference 2.4%, 95% CI -6.9-11.6%) The patients in the intermittent catheterisation group were more often catheterised (p<0.001) and required more bladder scans (p<0.001) but regained normal bladder function sooner than the patients in the indwelling catheterisation group (p<0.001). Fourteen percent of the patients in the intermittent group did not need any catheterisation. Cost-effectiveness was similar between the indwelling and intermittent urinary catheterisation methods.ConclusionsBoth indwelling and intermittent methods could be appropriate in clinical practice. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages but by not using routine indwelling catheterisation, unnecessary catheterisations might be avoided in this patient group.Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

18 keywords...

hide…