Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1740209
Intermittent versus Continuous Catheterization and Differences in the Evolution of Labor: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Cateterismo intermitente versus contínuo e diferenças na evolução do trabalho de parto: Revisão sistemática e meta-análise
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the differences between bladder emptying options (permanent catheterization and intermittent bladder emptying/spontaneous urination) regarding the effects on labor length, need of operative vaginal deliveries, and cesarean section rate.
Data Sources The search was conducted in MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases.
Selection of Studies The survey returned 964 studies. A total of 719 studies were evaluated by title and abstract, of which 4 were selected for inclusion.
Data Collection All references were inserted in the Rayyan QCRI tool (Rayyan Systems Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA). The full text of the selected articles was obtained so we could later decide whether or not to include them in this systematic review.
Data Synthesis No differences were found in the number of instrumented deliveries or in cesarean section rate between groups.
Conclusions After evaluating the studies performed on the topic, we concluded that there is no clear advantage to either method, although continuous catheterization was associated with a greater occurrence of eutocic births. In the remaining outcomes, there were no differences between catheterization types.
Resumo
Objetivo Avaliar as diferenças entre as opções de esvaziamento vesical (cateterismo permanente e esvaziamento vesical intermitente/micção espontânea) em relação aos efeitos na duração do trabalho de parto, necessidade de partos vaginais operatórios e taxa de cesárea.
Fontes de Dados A pesquisa foi realizada nas bases de dados MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, e The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.
Seleção de Estudos A pesquisa retornou 964 estudos. Um total de 719 estudos foram avaliados por título e resumo, dos quais 4 foram selecionados para inclusão.
Coleta de Dados Todas as referências foram inseridas na ferramenta Rayyan QCRI (Rayyan Systems Inc., Cambridge, MA, EUA). O texto completo dos artigos selecionados foi obtido para posterior decisão de incluí-los nesta revisão sistemática.
Síntese dos Dados Não foram encontradas diferenças no número de partos instrumentados ou na taxa de cesariana entre os grupos.
Conclusões Após avaliação dos estudos realizados sobre o tema, concluímos que não há vantagem clara de qualquer um dos métodos, embora o cateterismo contínuo tenha sido associado à maior ocorrência de partos eutócicos. Nos demais desfechos, não houve diferenças entre os tipos de cateterismo.
Contributors
All authors participated in the concept and design of the study, as well as in the analysis and interpretation of data, and draft or revision of the manuscript; they have also approved the manuscript as submitted. All authors are responsible for the research.
Publication History
Received: 24 November 2020
Accepted: 08 September 2021
Article published online:
21 December 2021
© 2021. Federação Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil
-
References
- 1 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 209: obstetric analgesia and anesthesia. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 133 (03) e208-e225
- 2 American Society of Anesthesiologists. Practice Guidelines for Obstetric Anesthesia: An Updated Report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Obstetric Anesthesia and the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology. Anesthesiology 2016; 124 (02) 270-300
- 3 Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Spong CY, Dashe JS, Hoffman BL. et al. Williams obstetrics. 24th ed.. New York: McGraw Hill; 2014
- 4 Evron S, Dimitrochenko V, Khazin V, Sherman A, Sadan O, Boaz M. et al. The effect of intermittent versus continuous bladder catheterization on labor duration and postpartum urinary retention and infection: a randomized trial. J Clin Anesth 2008; 20 (08) 567-572
- 5 Petitprez K, Guillaume S, Mattuizzi A, Arnal M, Artzner F, Bernard C. et al. Accouchement normal : accompagnement de la physiologie et interventions médicales. Recommandations de la Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) avec la collaboration du Collège National des Gynécologues Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF) et du Collège National des Sages-Femmes de France (CNSF) – Texte des recommandations (texte court). Gynécol Obstét Fertil Sénol 2020; 48 (12) 873-882
- 6 Rivard C, Awad M, Liebermann M, DeJong M, Massey SM, Sinacore J. et al. Bladder drainage during labor: a randomized controlled trial. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2012; 38 (08) 1046-1051
- 7 Suleiman A, Mruwat-Rabah S, Garmi G, Dagilayske D, Zelichover T, Salim R. Effect of intermittent versus continuous bladder catheterization on duration of the second stage of labor among nulliparous women with an epidural: a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2018; 29 (05) 691-696
- 8 Wilson BL, Passante T, Rauschenbach D, Yang R, Wong B. Bladder management with epidural anesthesia during labor: a randomized controlled trial. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs 2015; 40 (04) 234-242 , quiz E17–E18. Doi: 10.1097/NMC.0000000000000156