Postoperative Urinary Retention

Colleen D McDermott; Elena Tunitsky-Bitton; Omar F Dueñas-Garcia; Marcella G Willis-Gray; Lauren A Cadish; Autumn Edenfield; Rui Wang; Kate Meriwether; Elizabeth R Mueller

doi:10.1097/SPV.0000000000001344

Postoperative Urinary Retention

Urogynecology (Phila). 2023 Apr 1;29(4):381-396. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000001344.

Authors

Colleen D McDermott¹, Elena Tunitsky-Bitton², Omar F Dueñas-Garcia³, Marcella G Willis-Gray⁴, Lauren A Cadish⁵, Autumn Edenfield⁶, Rui Wang⁷, Kate Meriwether⁸, Elizabeth R Mueller⁹

Affiliations

¹ From the Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
² Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT; University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT.
³ West Virginia University, WVU Medicine, Morgantown, WV.
⁴ University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
⁵ Providence Saint John's Health Center, Santa Monica, CA.
⁶ Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC.
⁷ Penn Medicine Princeton Health, Princeton, NJ.
⁸ University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
⁹ Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL.

PMID: 37695249
DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000001344

Abstract

This clinical consensus statement on the management of postoperative (<6 weeks) urinary retention (POUR) reflects statements drafted by content experts from the American Urogynecologic Society's POUR writing group. The writing group used a modified Delphi process to evaluate statements developed from a structured literature search and assessed for consensus. After the definition of POUR was established, a total of 37 statements were assessed in the following 6 categories: (1) incidence of POUR, (2) medications, (3) patient factors, (4) surgical factors, (5) urodynamic testing, and (6) voiding trials. Of the 37 original statements, 34 reached consensus and 3 were omitted.

MeSH terms

Consensus
Humans
Postoperative Complications / diagnosis
Postoperative Period
Urinary Retention* / diagnosis
Urodynamics