Postpartum urinary retention after the institution of a universal voiding protocol

Abstract

Objective

Postpartum urinary retention is a frequently occurring condition for which screening is not typically a standardized part of postpartum care. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of and risk factors for postpartum urinary retention after the introduction of a universal postpartum voiding protocol.

Methods

This was a single-center retrospective case-control study of women delivering in a 12-month period. Women with a documented diagnosis of postpartum urinary retention per the institution’s voiding protocol were classified as cases, and a matched sample of those without urinary retention were controls. Demographic and obstetric characteristics were compared between both groups using univariate and multivariate analyses as a means to identify risk factors for postpartum urinary retention.

Results

8992 women were studied during the time period examined; 195 (2.2%) were identified to have postpartum urinary retention. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, operative vaginal delivery (aOR 2.98 95% CI 1.32–6.70) and second-degree or greater perineal laceration (aOR 2.83 CI 1.59–5.04) were significantly associated with postpartum urinary retention.

Conclusions

The incidence of postpartum urinary retention with a postpartum voiding protocol in place was low. Risk factors identified for urinary retention included operative vaginal delivery and second degree or greater perineal laceration. Awareness of these risk factors and implementation of standardized voiding protocols may aid with the early identification and prevention of postpartum urinary retention.

Keywords:

• Postpartum urinary retention
• voiding protocol
• risk factor
• incidence

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our institution’s Department of Medical Social Sciences for assisting with the statistical analyses.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

Research reported in this publication was supported, in part, by the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Grant Number UL1TR001422.