A Prospective Multi-Institutional Evaluation of Iatrogenic Urethral Catheterization Injuries

Figures & data

Table 1. Population demographics.

Age	Mean 76.1 ± 13.1 years (Range 33–101)
Gender	100% male (66/66)
Original indication for catheter insertion (data available n = 62)	Urinary retention	40.3% (n = 25)
	Hematuria	16.1% (n = 10)
	Monitoring of urinary output (including critical care	16.1% (n = 10)
	Routine change of long-term UC	14.5% (n = 9)
	Replacement of indwelling catheter due blockage/inadvertent removal	12.9% (n = 8)

Note: Baseline details of patients who sustained UC injury, including the initial reason for attempted urethral catheterization.

Figure 1. Circumstances of urethral injury; location in which injury was sustained (a) and role/grade of healthcare provider performing catheterization when injury occurred (b).

Table 2. Acute management of UC injury.

Management approach	Patient number (%)		Further details
Conservative	3 (5.3%)		–
Bedside insertion of urethral catheter	20 (35.1%)	Tiemann/Coudé tip catheter (n = 7)
		3-way catheter (n = 3)
		Unspecified (n = 10)
Guidewire-assisted urethral catheterization	13 (22.8%)	Guidewire alone (n = 9)
		Guidewire + dilation (n = 4)
Cystoscopic attempt at catheterization	16 (28.1%)	Successful (n = 14)
		Unsuccessful (n = 2)
Insertion of suprapubic catheter	7 (12.3%)	Percutaneous (n = 6)
		Open cystotomy (n = 1)

Note: Immediate management strategy employed by the consulting urology team upon diagnosis of UC injury. Data available on 57 injuries; 2 patients underwent both cystoscopy (unsuccessful) and suprapubic catheterization.

Figure 2. Short-term follow-up data.