Prophylactic Ureteral Catheters for Colectomy: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program-Based Analysis.

Background: Despite improvement in technique and technology, using prophylactic ureteral catheters to avoid iatrogenic ureteral injury during colectomy remains controversial.
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes and costs attributable to prophylactic ureteral catheters with colectomy.
Design: This was a retrospective study.
Settings: The study was conducted at a single tertiary care center.
Patients: The colectomy-targeted American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2012 to 2014 was queried.
Main Outcome Measures: The primary end point was the rate of 30-day ureteral injury after colectomy. Univariate and multivariate analyses determined factors associated with ureteral injury and urinary tract infection in patients undergoing colectomy.
Results: A total of 51,125 patients were identified with a mean age of 60.9 ± 14.9 years and a BMI of 28.4 ± 6.7 k/m; 4.90% (n = 2486) of colectomies were performed with prophylactic catheters, and 333 ureteral injuries (0.65%) were identified. Prophylactic ureteral catheters were most commonly used for diverticular disease (42.2%; n = 1048), with injury occurring most often during colectomy for diverticular disease (36.0%; n = 120). Univariate analysis of outcomes demonstrated higher rates of ileus, wound infection, urinary tract infection, urinary tract infection as reason for readmission, superficial site infection, and 30-day readmission in patients with prophylactic ureteral catheter placement. On multivariate analysis, prophylactic ureteral catheter placement was associated with a lower rate of ureteral injury (OR = 0.45 (95% CI, 0.25-0.81)).
Limitations: This was a retrospective study using a clinical data set.
Conclusions: Here, prophylactic ureteral catheters were used in 4.9% of colectomies and most commonly for diverticulitis. On multivariate analysis, prophylactic catheter placement was associated with a lower rate of ureteral injury. Additional research is needed to delineate patient populations most likely to benefit from prophylactic ureteral stent placement. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A482.