Wide Variation in Post-Void Residual Management after Urogynecologic Surgery: A Survey of Urogynecologists’ Practices

Abstract

To date there is no standardized regimen or evidence-based practical guideline concerning post-void residual (PVR) measurement after urogynecologic surgeries. This survey aimed to evaluate current practice patterns and the approach taken among urogynecologists surrounding PVR measurement. An online survey was sent to members of several urogynecologic societies assessing pre- and postoperative management of patients undergoing urogynecologic surgery. A total of 204 urogynecologists from 21 countries participated in the survey. The vast majority of urogynecologists perform some kind of voiding trial to assess voiding function postoperatively. The cut-off values to perform catheterization, the methods of measurement, and the number of successfully passed voiding showed strong differences. Only 34.4% of the respondents consider routine PVR measurement after urogynecologic surgery to be evidence-based. PVR measurement after urogynecologic surgeries is widely performed and if pathological, it almost always provokes invasive treatment. However, there is a wide variation of implemented strategies, methods, and cut-off values. Scientific societies are challenged to devise a standardized regimen based on evidence for the management of urinary retention after urogynecologic surgery.

Keywords

• pelvic organ prolapse surgery
• postoperative assessment
• postoperative urinary retention
• post-void residual
• survey
• voiding dysfunction