Abstract
Study design:
Retrospective review of findings during cystourethroscopic surveillance of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with indwelling urethral catheters (IUC) and suprapubic catheters (SPC) monitored between January 2003 and December 2008.
Objectives:
To audit and compare findings between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients and between SPC and IUC population. To systematically review the literature including the recent National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines on cystoscopic surveillance.
Methods:
Theater management system and the electronic patient records used to retrieve demographics, injury details and operative findings.
Results:
Of 925 cystoscopies performed in 507 patients, 449 were performed in 277 patients with IUC/SPC. Only 419 procedures (SPC 264; IUC 155) in 262 patients fit the inclusion criteria. Thirty procedures in fifteen non traumatic patients were excluded. Statistically there was no significant difference in incidence of findings between the symptomatic and asymptomatic group. Recurrent blockage of catheter was predominant in the SPC group and symptomatic urinary tract infections (UTIs) were the most common indications in the IUC group. In the asymptomatic group, there were 44 squamous metaplastic changes in 27 patients. Two of these patients had keratinizing variants. The duration of catheterization ranged from 20 months to 27 years and mean of 13.7 years. The average duration between two cystoscopies in the symptomatic group was 16 months compared with an average 21 months in the asymptomatic group.
Conclusion:
Cystourethroscopic surveillance in high-risk patients with IUC/SPC is essential to diagnose and manage at an early-stage complications associated with IUC/SPC, minimize symptomatology, mitigate aggravation of complications, maintain good health and probably good quality of life.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
El-Masri(y) WS, Chong T, Kyriakider AE, Wang D . Long-term follow-up study of outcomes of bladder management in spinal cord injury patients under the care of The Midlands centre for Spinal Injuries in Oswestry. Spinal Cord 2012; 50: 14–21.
Office for national statistics Cancer incidence and mortality in the UK, 2007–2009, Statistical bulletin, March 2012 UK.
El-Masri WS, Fellows G . Bladder cancer after spinal cord injury. Paraplegia 1981; 19: 265–270.
Stonehill WH, Dmochowski RR, Patterson AL, Cox CE . Risk factors for bladder tumors in spinal cord injury patients. J Urol 1996; 155: 1248–1250.
Kalisvaart JF, Katsumi HK, Ronningen LD, Hovey RM . Bladder cancer in spinal cord injury patients. Spinal Cord 2010; 48: 257–261.
Babjuk M, Oosterlinck W, Sylvester R, Kaasinen E, Böhle A, Palou-Redorta J et al. EAU guidelines on non-muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, the 2011 update. Actas Urol Esp 2012; 36: 389–402.
Chao R, Clowers D, Mayo ME . Fate of upper urinary tracts in patients with indwelling catheters after spinal cord injury. Urology 1993; 42: 259–262.
Kamat AM, Karam JA, Grossman HB, Kader AK, Munsell M, Dinney CP . Prospective trial to identify optimal bladder cancer surveillance protocol: reducing costs while maximizing sensitivity. BJU Int 2011; 108: 1119–1123.
Navon JD, Soliman H, Khonsari F, Ahlering T . Screening cystoscopy and survival of spinal cord injured patients with squamous cell cancer of the bladder. J Urol 1997; 157: 2109–2111.
National Clinical Guideline Centre National Clinical Guideline Centre’s Clinical Guideline 148: Methods, evidence and recommendations, 293, August 2012.
National Clinical Guideline Centre National Clinical Guideline Centre’s Clinical Guideline 148: Methods, evidence and recommendations, 292, August 2012.
Tins B, Teo HG, Popuri R, Cassar-Pullicino V, Tyrrell P . Follow-up imaging of the urinary tact in spinal injury patients: is a KUB necessary with every ultrasound? Spinal Cord 2005; 43: 219–222.
Acknowledgements
We thank all the Consultants at Midland Centre for Spinal Injuries, Consultant Radiologists and Institute Library (Scott Rosenberg), The Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopedic Hospital, Oswestry and the charity SPIRIT for their support.
Author contribution
We applied the Sequence Determines Credit (SDC) approach for the sequence of authors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
El Masri(y), W., Patil, S., Prasanna, K. et al. To cystoscope or not to cystoscope patients with traumatic spinal cord injuries managed with indwelling urethral or suprapubic catheters? That is the question!. Spinal Cord 52, 49–53 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2013.119
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2013.119
Keywords
This article is cited by
-
The argument against screening for bladder cancer in neuro-urological patients
World Journal of Urology (2022)
-
Bladder cancer detection in patients with neurogenic bladder: are cystoscopy and cytology effective, and are biomarkers pertinent as future diagnostic tools? A scoping review
World Journal of Urology (2022)
-
Experience of a tertiary referral center in managing bladder cancer in conjunction with neurogenic bladder
Spinal Cord Series and Cases (2020)
