medigraphic.com
Organo Oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Urología

2018, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Urol 2018; 78 (2)

Complications in the use of a traditional urinary drainage bag with an antireflux valve versus a modified Chavolla version in patients with hematuria

Chavolla-Canal AJ, Dubey-Malagón LA, Mendoza-Sandoval AA, Vázquez-Pérez D

Language: Spanish
References: 17
Page: 119-127
PDF size: 672.96 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: Urinary drainage bag dysfunction affects the entireurinary drainage system, with important consequences for the patient.
Objective: To analyze the complications resulting from the use of the traditional urinary drainage bag available, compared with the modified Chavolla bag.
Materials and Methods:A nonrandomized, prospective, crosssectional study was conducted on patients diagnosed with persistent hematuria that required the placement of a transurethral catheter with cystoclysis and a urinary drainage bag. The patients were divided into group 1: placement of the traditional bag and group 2: placement of the modified Chavolla bag. The statistical analysis was carried out through mean and standard deviation for the quantitative variables and proportions (frequencies) for the qualitative variables. The former were compared using the Student’s t test, and the latter using the χ2 test.
Results: The case records of 35 patients were registered: 10 in group 1 and 25 in group 2. The patients in the two groups were similar in age and had comparable comorbidities. All the patients in group 1 had drainage system failure and their bags had to be replaced with the modified Chavolla bag (mean time of 3 hours). No urinary drainage bag malfunction was registered in group 2. The main complication in all the cases was bag obstruction due to a blood clot that was not attributed per se to the intensity of the bleeding.
Conclusion: The modified Chavolla urinary drainage bag was effective in patients that required cystoclysis due to hematuria.


REFERENCES

  1. Solorzano A, Jimenez P, Sampedro A, de Dios Luna del Castillo J, Martínez-Brocal A, Miranda-Casas C, et al. Evolution of the resistance to antibiotic of bacteria involved in urinary tract infections: A 7 –year surveillance study. Am J Infect Control. 2014;42(10):1033-1038.

  2. Tyagi A, Singh V, Bharadwaj M, Kumar A, Thakur K. Isolation and antibacterial susceptibility testing of multi drug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa causing urinary tract infections. J Chem Pharm Res. 2011; 3(4): 342-347.

  3. Chavolla-Canal A J, Gonzalez-Mercado M G, Ruiz-Larios O A. Prevalencia de bacterias aisladas con resistencia antibiótica extendida en los cultivos de orina durante 8 años en un hospital de segundo nivel en México. Rev Mex Urol. 2016; 76(4):213-217.

  4. Bjerklund Johansen TE, Cek M, Naber K, Stratchounski L, Svendsen MV, Tenke P. Prevalence of hospital-acquired urinary tract infections in urology departments. Eur Urol. 2007; 51(4):1100-1111.

  5. Pickard R, Bartoletti R, Bjerklund-Johansen T, Bonkat G, Bruyère F, Çek M, et al. (2016). Guidelines on Urological Infections. In: N’Dow J, Briganti A, De Santis M, Knoll T, Llorente Abarca C, Sylvester R. European Association of Urology Guidelines, 2016 ed. Europe: European Association of Urology, pp.3-10. Dirección URL: .

  6. Wenzler-Röttele S, Dettenkofer M, Schmidt-Eisenlohr E, Gregersen A, Schulte-Mönting J, Tvede M. Comparison in a laboratory model between the performance of a urinary closed system bag with double non-return valve and that of a single valve system. Infection 2006;34:214-218.

  7. Tenke P, Kovacs B, Bjerklund T E, Matsumoto T, Tambyah P A, Naber K G. European and Asian guidelines on management and prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2008;31:68-78.

  8. Shbeeb A, Young J L, Hart S A, Hart J C, Gelman J. Lock-out valve to decrease catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Advances in Urology. 2014;1-4.

  9. Kubilay Z, Archibald L, Kirschner L, Laynon J. What we don’t know may hurt us: Urinary drainage system tubing coils and CA-UTIsdA prospective quality study. Am J Infect Control. 2013; 41(12): 1278-1280.

  10. Teleflex Medical Europe Ltd [Internet]. Sistemas cerrados de drenaje urinario Rüsch. Para una máxima protección contra las infecciones nosocomiales de las vías urinarias. Irlanda: Teleflex; 2011 [citado 12 de diciembre 2016]. pp 1-16. Dirección URL: .

  11. FDA: The Food and Drug Administration [Internet]. Estados Unidos de América: FDA; 1994. Urine drainage bag guidance. 1-5. Dirección URL: .

  12. Tyco Healthcare Group LP [Internet]. Mansfield; 2007. Tully S. Top vent study: optimizing urine collection system flow to improve patient outcomes. 1-7. Dirección URL: .

  13. Gray M, Joseph A C, Mercer D, Newman D K, Rovner E. Symposium: Consensus and controversy in urinary drainage systems (Covidien, Clinical Care Division): Implications for improving patient safety. Safe Pract 2008;4(1):1-7.

  14. Clinicaltrials.gov [Internet]. Florida; 2015 [Citado 12 de diciembre 2016]. Lampotang S, Gravenstein N, Luria I, Smith W B. Retained urine volume and bacteriuria in traditional versus vented urine drainage systems. Dirección URL: .

  15. Winterbottom D R, Seal D V. Comparison of flow rates into vented and non-vented urinary drainage bags: possible relevance to infection. J Hosp Infect. 1987;10(3):273-81.

  16. Jones S, Brooks A, Dunkin J. Care of urinary catheters and drainage systems. Nursing Times. 2008;103(42):48-50.

  17. Pellowe C, Gibbs E, Hayter E, Head Z, Lee E, Nevill M, et al. Infection: prevention and control of healthcare-associated infections in primary and community care. NICE: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence [Internet]. London: NICE; 2012 [citado 12 de diciembre 2016]. 116-155. Dirección URL: .




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com