Is there a difference in outcome when treating traumatic intraperitoneal bladder rupture with or without a suprapubic tube?

PURPOSE: Primary bladder repair with a suprapubic tube is considered to be effective for managing intraperitoneal bladder injury. We compared the outcomes of suprapubic tube placement and no suprapubic tube for this injury.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the charts of 31 men and 3 women with a mean age of 28.5 years who required emergency operative repair without a cystogram of traumatic bladder injury from 1992 to 1997. Patient characteristics, mechanism of injury, associated injuries, and short and long-term complications were reviewed.

RESULTS: Penetrating and blunt trauma occurred in 28 (82%) and 5 (15%) patients, respectively, while 1 had spontaneous bladder rupture. After primary bladder repair the bladder was drained with a suprapubic tube in 18 cases (53%) and a urethral catheter only in 16 (47%). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups with respect to mechanism of injury, patient age, location of injury in the bladder, coexisting medical illnesses, stability in the field or emergency room, or the bladder repair technique. The 18 patients treated with a suprapubic tube had an associated injury that resulted in 2 deaths, while 13 of the 16 treated with urethral catheter drainage only had an associated injury and 1 died. Urological and nonurological complications in the suprapubic tube versus urethral catheter only group developed in 28 and 33 versus 19 and 19% of the cases, respectively (p <0.05). Followup ranged from 1 month to 4 years. No significant long-term morbidity was noted in either group.

CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that intraperitoneal bladder injuries may be equally well managed by primary bladder repair and urethral catheter drainage only versus suprapubic tube drainage.