Volume 4, Issue 1, June 2020, Page: 13-16
Effect of Variation of Volume of Injected Water in the Air Sacs of Urinary Catheters on Bladder Spasm After Transurethral Plasmakentic Vaporization of Prostate
Hong Caimei, Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, China
Guo Xiaoxia, Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, China
Li Qiufeng, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China
Yang Qi, Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, China
Chao Xinghui, Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, China
Ba Longhong, Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, China
Received: Jan. 9, 2020;       Accepted: Feb. 3, 2020;       Published: Feb. 12, 2020
DOI: 10.11648/j.ijcu.20200401.13      View  416      Downloads  108
Abstract
Objective We aim to explore variation of the injected water volume in the air sacs of indwelling urinary catheters on bladder spasm and blood urine in patients after transurethral plasmakentic vaporization of prostate (TUPKVP). Methods We included 90 patients who had benign prostatic hyperplasia and received transurethral plasmakentic vaporization of prostate in the First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University from July 2018 to July 2019. They were averagely randomized into three groups: control group, experimental group A and experimental group B. We injected 30 ml of water into the air sacs of urinary catheters of patients postoperatively. At the first day after operation, the water was reduced to 20 ml in experimental group A, 10 ml in experimental group B, and the water volume in control group remained unchanged. The bladder spasm, blood urine and comfort level in three groups were analyzed comparatively. Results Nursing intervention of reducing injected water volume resulted in a lower incidence of bladder spasm in experimental group B than those in other two groups with 10% on the day of surgery, 3.3% at the second day postoperatively and no bladder spasm at the third day after operation. There was a significant difference in the incidence of bladder spasm between the three groups (χ2=19.449, P=0.000; χ2=6.469, P=0.040; χ2=8.314, P=0.013). Blood urine was milder in experimental group B than that in other two groups at the third day postoperatively with significant difference (χ2=6.796, P=0.037). Patients in experimental group B felt more comfortable than those in other two groups with a rate of comfort up to 70%. There was a significant difference in it between three groups (χ2=9.600, P=0.008). Conclusions For patients who underwent transurethral plasmakentic vaporization of prostate, when continuous bladder irrigation and analgesia are withdrawn, reduction of water volume in the air sacs of indwelling urinary catheters to 10ml can relieve the constriction of the bladder outlet and rubbing bladder mucosa and prostatic fossa and thus reduce the incidence of bladder spasm and blood urine and increase comfort level.
Keywords
Transurethral Plasmakentic Vaporization of Prostate, Indwelling Urinary Catheter, Volume of Air Sac, Nursing Intervention
To cite this article
Hong Caimei, Guo Xiaoxia, Li Qiufeng, Yang Qi, Chao Xinghui, Ba Longhong, Effect of Variation of Volume of Injected Water in the Air Sacs of Urinary Catheters on Bladder Spasm After Transurethral Plasmakentic Vaporization of Prostate, International Journal of Clinical Urology. Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020, pp. 13-16. doi: 10.11648/j.ijcu.20200401.13
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reference
[1]
Rassweiler, J., Teber, D., Kuntz, R., & Hofmann, R. (2006). Complications of transurethral resection of the prostate (turp)-incidence, management, and prevention. European Urology, 50 (5), 969-980.
[2]
May, A., Broggi, E., Lorphelin, H., Tabchouri, N., & Bruyere, F. (2014). Comparison of the risk of postoperative infection between transurethral vaporesection and transurethral resection of the prostate. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, 46 (5), 405-11.
[3]
Taylor, B. L., & Jaffe, W. I. (2015). Electrosurgical transurethral resection of the prostate and transurethral incision of the prostate (monopolar techniques). The Canadian Journal of Urology, 22 (5S1), 24-29.
[4]
Sio, M. D., Autorino, R., Quarto, G., Damiano, R., Sisto Perdonà, & Lorenzo, G. D., et al. (2006). Gyrus bipolar versus standard monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate: a randomized prospective trial. Urology, 67 (1), 69-72.
[5]
Dybowski, B. A., Piotr Zapała, Bres-Niewada, E., Łukasz Zapała, & Radziszewski, P. (2018). Catheter-associated bacterial flora in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia: shift in antimicrobial susceptibility pattern. BMC Infectious Diseases, 18 (1), 590.
[6]
Starkman, J. S., & Santucci, R. A. (2005). Comparison of bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate with standard transurethral prostatectomy: shorter stay, earlier catheter removal and fewer complications. BJU International, 95 (1): 69-71.
[7]
Gillies, D., Lane, L., Murrell, D., & Cohen, R. (2003). Bladder spasm in children after surgery for ureteric reimplantation. Pediatric Surgery International, 19 (11), 733-736.
[8]
Hammadeh, M. Y., & Philp, T. (2003). Transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate (tuvp) is effective, safe and durable. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis, 6 (2), 121-126.
[9]
Geavlete, P. (2010). Is classical transurethral resection of the prostate, the gold standard endoscopic treatment for benign prostate hyperplasia, in real danger of being replaced?. European Urology, 58 (3), 356-358.
[10]
Emerson Luís Zani, & Netto, N. R. (2007). Is the minimally invasive treatment as good as transurethral resection for benign prostatic hyperplasia? International Urology and Nephrology, 39 (1), 161-168.
[11]
Robinson, & John. (2005). Changing indwelling urinary catheters using bladder infill. British Journal of Community Nursing, 10 (6), 266-269.
[12]
Chander, J, Vanitha, V., Lal, P., & Ramteke, V. K. (2003). Transurethral resection of the prostate as catheter-free day-care surgery. BJU International, 92 (4), 422-425.
[13]
Wilson, I. D., Bramwell, S. P., & Hollins, G. W. (2000). A randomized trial comparing bladder infusion with standard catheter removal after transurethral resection of the prostate. BJU International, 86 (9), 993-995.
[14]
Pomfret, & Ian. (2007). Urinary catheterization: selection and clinical management. British Journal of Community Nursing, 12 (8), 348-354.
[15]
Taylor, P. (2002). Management of continence and urinary catheter care. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 11 (7), 770-770.
[16]
Robinson, & John. (2006). Selecting a urinary catheter and drainage system. British Journal of Nursing, 15 (19), 1045-1050.
Browse journals by subject