E-Posters-10232

10232_Alas

Pdf Summary

This study aimed to compare the rates of postoperative urinary retention (POUR) for same-day vaginal pelvic floor surgeries using spinal versus general anesthesia. The secondary aim was to compare complications and patient recovery scores. Previous studies have indicated a link between spinal anesthesia and POUR in non-gynecological and gynecological surgeries, particularly sling surgeries.<br /><br />A total of 55 subjects were randomized, with 24 in the spinal group and 29 in the general group. There were no baseline differences among the groups. The study found no difference in POUR rates between spinal and general anesthesia. However, higher failure rates were observed in those with higher baseline post void residual (PVR) volumes, lower urodynamic study maximum flow rates (Qmax), higher estimated blood loss, and those requiring a longer time to complete the voiding trial.<br /><br />There was also no difference in patient recovery scores between the two forms of anesthesia. Furthermore, no significant differences were found in complications, hematomas, Foley reinsertions after a successful voiding trial, or readmission rates.<br /><br />Based on these findings, it was concluded that there is no increased risk of POUR with spinal anesthesia for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery with incontinence slings. Therefore, for patients who would benefit from spinal anesthesia, the risk of urinary retention should not be considered a reason to avoid this form of anesthesia.<br /><br />This study provides valuable insights into the use of spinal anesthesia for POP surgery with incontinence slings and suggests that it can be safely and effectively used without an increased risk of urinary retention.

Keywords

postoperative urinary retention

POUR

vaginal pelvic floor surgeries

spinal anesthesia

general anesthesia

complications

patient recovery scores

sling surgeries

baseline post void residual

urodynamic study maximum flow rates