RESUMO
Introduction: Postoperative urinary retention may predispose to permanent bladder damage. Risk factors include type of anesthesia, type of surgery, and use of anticholinergics, analgesics, and opioids. Once the lesion is established, complementary urodynamic tests are essential for etiological diagnosis and treatment. The objective of this study is to report a case of a patient with urinary retention in the postoperative period of lipoabdominoplasty. Case Report: 27-year-old female patient, without comorbidities or use of continuous medication. She underwent lipoabdominoplasty and evolved postoperatively with urinary retention and bladder distention, diagnosed as detrusor contractility and sensitivity deficit in the urodynamic study. She was maintained in outpatient follow-up with the surgical team and Urology, with a progressive reduction in urinary catheter use and complete removal in eight months of follow-up. Discussion: The objective of aesthetic plastic surgery is to improve the physical appearance of the body. It is subject to complications like other surgical procedures, and pain seems to be the most frequent. Urinary retention may be secondary to the use of opioids, and its diagnosis in the postoperative period of lipoabdominoplasty still has some obstacles. Plication of the rectus muscle diastasis, liposuction, and the use of a compressive abdominal belt make it difficult to identify a possible bladder distention. An episode of bladder overdistention can result in significant morbidity. Conclusion: The present report demonstrated the good evolution of a patient who developed urinary retention in the postoperative period of lipoabdominoplasty. The main diagnostic hypothesis was that it was secondary to the use of opioids.
Introdução: A retenção urinária pós-operatória pode predispor a danos permanentes à bexiga. Os fatores de risco incluem tipo de anestesia, tipo de cirurgia e uso anticolinérgicos, analgésicos e opioides. Uma vez que a lesão está estabelecida, os exames complementares urodinâmicos são fundamentais para diagnóstico etiológico e tratamento. O objetivo deste trabalho é relatar caso de paciente com quadro de retenção urinária no pós-operatório de lipoabdominoplastia. Relato de Caso: Paciente de 27 anos, sexo feminino, sem comorbidades ou uso de medicamentos contínuos. Foi submetida a lipoabdominoplastia, e evoluiu no pós-operatório com quadro de retenção urinária e bexigoma, diagnosticada como acontratilidade detrusora e déficit de sensibilidade no estudo urodinâmico. Manteve acompanhamento ambulatorial com a equipe cirúrgica e a Urologia, com redução progressiva do uso do cateter vesical e retirada completa em oito meses de seguimento. Discussão: O objetivo da cirurgia plástica estética é melhorar o aspecto físico do corpo. Como os demais procedimentos cirúrgicos, está sujeita a complicações e a dor parece ser a mais frequente. A retenção urinária pode ser secundária ao uso de opioides e seu diagnóstico no pós-operatório da lipoabdominoplastia ainda possui alguns obstáculos. A plicatura da diástase do músculo reto, a lipoaspiração e o uso de cinta abdominal compressiva dificultam a identificação do possível bexigoma. Um episódio de hiperdistensão da bexiga pode resultar em morbidade significativa. Conclusão: O presente relato demonstrou boa evolução de paciente que desenvolveu retenção urinária no pós-operatório de lipoabdominoplastia. A principal hipótese diagnóstica foi de ser secundária ao uso de opioide.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the lower urinary tract symptoms, classified by the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), urodynamic results (Watts Factor (WF), Bladder Contractility Index (BCI), and post void residual (PVR), in order to differentiate Detrusor Underactivity (DU) from Bladder Outlet Obstruction (BOO). METHODS: Retrospective observational study performed from 2011 to 2018 at the Hospital das Clínicas of Unicamp. Two phases were done: first, to estimate sample size, and second, to evaluate the predicted parameters. Male patients with range age from 40 to 80 years were included. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1, without BOO and with DU; Group 2, with BOO. Variables analyzed: age, comorbidities, symptoms, urodynamic data (BCI and WF) and PVR. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were included in each group, with medians of 68 (Group 1) and 67.5 years old (Group 2) (p = 0.8416). There was no difference for comorbidities. In relation to IPSS, medians were: 16.5 and 20.5, respectively (p = 0.858). As for symptoms, there was predominance of combination of storage and voiding symptoms in the two groups (p = 0.1810). Regarding PVR, 15 patients in Group 1 and 16 in Group 2 presented PVR> 30mL (p = 0.7411). BCI presented median values of 75 and 755.50 for Group 1 and Group 2, respectively (p < 0.0001), while WF had medians of 22.42 and 73.85 (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Isolated symptoms, classified by IPSS and PVR, could not differentiate patients with DU from those with BOO, but it was possible using urodynamic data.