COMPLICATIONS OF PERCUTANEOUS CYSTOSTOMY AT TERTIARY HOSPITAL
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to identify the complications associated with percutaneous cystostomy performed at tertiary hospital. Material & Methods: This study employed a retrospective descriptive design involving patients who underwent percutaneous cystostomy at Saiful Anwar General Hospital from January 2019 to December 2024. Data were collected by reviewing patient medical records, including information on average age, gender, diagnosis, and complications related to the procedure. Complications were classified into intra-procedural and post-procedural categories. This study was approved by the Health Research Ethic Commission of Saiful Anwar General Hospital No: 400/050/K.3/102.7/2025. Results: A total of 72 patients were included in the study (71 males, 1 female), with an average age of 58.58 years. Early complications observed in 7 patients included catheter obstruction in 6 patients (8.3%) and hematuria in 1 patient (1.4%). Late complications limited to surgical site infection, which occurred in 3 patients (4.2%). Conclusion: Percutaneous cystostomy is a safe and effective procedure with a low complication rate, making it a viable routine practice in clinical urology. Keywords: Percutaneous cystostomy, urinary retention, complications
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
percutaneous cystostomy, urinary retention, complications
Tirado J, Rambhia SH, Haramati A, Caplin DM. Urinary Diversion and Drainage. In: Interventional Urology. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2021. p. 343–75.
Traore MT, Yameogo CAMKD, Kabore M, Ouedraogo S. Epidemiology of Urological Emergencies at the Regional University Hospital Center of Ouahigouya, Burkina Faso. Open Journal of Urology. 2020;10(06):177–83. DOI: 10.4236/oju.2020.106020
Muhammad A, Agwu N, Abdulwahab-Ahmed A, Abdullahi K, Mungadi I. Safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided percutaneous suprapubic cystostomy in resource-poor setting: A 7-year review. Urol Ann. 2018;10(1):24. DOI: 10.4103/UA.UA_104_17
Murugesan A, Madhavan D. Early and late complications of suprapubic cystostomy – Report of two cases. Indian Journal of Urology. 2023 Apr;39(2):167–8. DOI: 10.4103/iju.iju_64_23
Hobbs C, Howles S, Derry F, Reynard J. Suprapubic catheterisation: a study of 1000 elective procedures. BJU Int. 2022 Jun 10;129(6):760–7. DOI: 10.4103/iju.iju_64_23
Harrison SCW, Lawrence WT, Morley R, Pearce I, Taylor J. British Association of Urological Surgeons’ suprapubic catheter practice guidelines. BJU Int. 2011 Jan 4;107(1):77–85. DOI: 10.1111/bju.15727
Ahluwalia R, Johal N, Kouriefs C, Kooiman G, Montgomery BS, Plail R. The Surgical Risk of Suprapubic Catheter Insertion and Long-Term Sequelae. The Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England. 2006 Mar;88(2):210–3. DOI: 10.1308/003588406X95101
Hasan AT, Fasihuddin Q, Sheikh MA. Suprapubic cystostomy: urinary tract infection and other short term complications. J Pak Med Assoc. 2002 Dec;52(12):557–60.
Stonier T, Simson N, Wilson E, Stergios KE. Bowel perforation presenting three months after suprapubic catheter insertion. BMJ Case Rep. 2017 Sep 7;bcr-2017-220791. DOI: 10.1136/bcr-2017-220791
Gao W, Ou T, Jia J, Fan J, Xu J, Li J, et al. Development and evaluation of a training model for paracentetic suprapubic cystostomy and catheterization. Clinics. 2019;74:e435. DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2019/e435
English SF. Update on voiding dysfunction managed with suprapubic catheterization. Transl Androl Urol. 2017 Jul;6(S2):S180–5. DOI: 10.21037/tau.2017.04.16
Shepherd AJ, Mackay WG, Hagen S. Washout policies in long-term indwelling urinary catheterisation in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017 Mar 6;2017(3). DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004012.pub5
Nurfajri DH, Pramod SV, Safriadi F, Hernowo BS. Suprapubic Catheter in a Patient with Bladder Carcinoma, Against the Prohibition: A Systematic Review and Case Report. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Care. 2022 Aug 12;7(3):581–6. DOI: 10.31557/APJCC.2022.7.3.581
Adeyemo B, Makovitch S, Foo D. A peculiar complication of suprapubic catheterization: Recurrent ureteral obstruction and hydronephrosis. J Spinal Cord Med. 2013 Mar 19;36(2):166–9. DOI: 10.1179/2045772312Y.0000000080
Hooton TM, Bradley SF, Cardenas DD, Colgan R, Geerlings SE, Rice JC, et al. Diagnosis, Prevention, and Treatment of Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection in Adults: 2009 International Clinical Practice Guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2010 Mar 1;50(5):625–63. DOI: 10.1086/650482
Costabella F, Patel KB, Adepoju A V, Singh P, Attia Hussein Mahmoud H, Zafar A, et al. Healthcare Cost and Outcomes Associated With Surgical Site Infection and Patient Outcomes in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Cureus. 2023 Jul 26;15(7):e42493. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.42493
Wilde MH, McMahon JM, Crean HF, Brasch J. Exploring relationships of catheter‐associated urinary tract infection and blockage in people with long‐term indwelling urinary catheters. J Clin Nurs. 2017 Sep 14;26(17–18):2558–71. DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13626
Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The Clavien-Dindo Classification of Surgical Complications. Ann Surg. 2009 Aug;250(2):187–96. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2
Roberts DG, Patel RB, Genshaft SJ, Padia SA, McWilliams JP, Moriarty JM, et al. Interventional Radiology Image-Guided Suprapubic Cystostomy Using Trocar versus Seldinger Technique: A Comparative Analysis of Outcomes and Complications. Urology. 2020 Aug;142:207–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.05.015