Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41583276›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

Postoperative Urinary Retention: A Call for Objective Assessment and Standardized Postoperative Protocols.

Caroline Eggemann, Leandro Nobrega

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Caroline EggemannObstetrics and Gynecology, Spitalzentrum Biel, Biel, CHE.
Leandro NobregaObstetrics and Gynecology, Spitalzentrum Biel, Biel, CHE.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Postoperative urinary retention (POUR) is a common yet under-recognized source of preventable morbidity after pelvic and gynecologic surgery. Despite its frequency and clinical impact, postoperative bladder function is frequently assessed subjectively, based on patient-reported comfort or the observation of a single "apparently normal" void, rather than through objective post-void residual (PVR) measurement. Studies using postoperative bladder ultrasound have demonstrated that clinically significant residual volumes may occur in the absence of pain or urgency, and observational data associate POUR with urinary tract infection, prolonged or repeated catheterization, impaired recovery, and an increased likelihood of subsequent intervention. Surveys further reveal substantial variation in how clinicians and institutions assess and manage postoperative bladder retention, with no consensus regarding assessment timing, PVR thresholds, or recatheterization criteria, reflecting local practice patterns rather than consolidated standards. In this editorial, we argue that POUR should be regarded as a perioperative safety domain rather than a minor inconvenience, and that standardized postoperative bladder protocols incorporating objective assessment strategies, such as routine or risk-adapted bladder ultrasound and predefined escalation pathways, represent feasible, low-cost interventions associated with improved safety and operational clarity in postoperative care workflows.

Indexed as

bladder scanpatient safetypostoperative protocolspostoperative urinary retentionpost-void residual

Identifiers

PMID41583276
PMCPMC12828237

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.