Search

Abstract Background Voiding trials are used to identify women at risk for postoperative urinary retention while performing optimal voiding trial management with minimal burden to the patient and medical service team. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of postoperative void trials following urogynecologic surgery to investigate (1) the optimal postoperative void trial methodology and (2) the optimal criteria for assessing void trial. Method We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and relevant reference lists of eligible articles from inception to April 2022. We identified any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in English that studied void trials in patients undergoing urogynecologic surgery. Study selection (title/abstract and full text), data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by two independent reviewers. Extracted study outcomes included the following: the correct passing rate, time to discharge, discharge rate without a catheter after the initial void trial, postoperative urinary tract infection, and patient satisfaction. Results Void trial methodology included backfill-assisted and autofill studies (2 RCTs, n = 95). Backfill assistance was more likely to be successful than autofill (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.29, 3.47, P = 0.00); however, no significant difference was found in the time to discharge (WMDs = − 29.11 min, 95% CI − 57.45, 1.23, P = 0.06). The criteria for passing void trial included subjective assessment of the urinary force of stream and objective assessment of the standard voiding trial (3 RCTs, n = 377). No significant differences were found in the correct passing rate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.93, 1.01, P = 0.14) or void trial failure rate (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.52, 1.18, P = 0.24). Moreover, no significant differences were found in the complication rates or patient satisfaction between the two criteria. Conclusion Bladder backfilling was associated with a lower rate of catheter discharge after urogynecologic surgery. The subjective assessment of FOS is a reliable and safe method for assessing postoperative voiding because it is less invasive. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42022313397