Is standard urine bag or urofix? Which is more usefully in surgical nursing care?

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 4, 423 - 427, 30.12.2020

Tülin Yıldız Cenk Murat Yazıcı Polat Türker Ebru Onler Arzu Malak Elif Eren Citak

https://doi.org/10.33808/clinexphealthsci.597753

Öz

Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the accuracy of urine output measurement performed by standard urine bags and urofix.
Methods: This is a prospective study conducted at a 22-bed urology unit. Urine volume was measured either by a standard urine bag or urofix, verified by scaled container measurements in patients dressed with urinary catheter and expected to stay with it for 24 hours or more. In total, 1048 measurements were obtained for 131 patients.
Results: The difference between median, maximum and minimum values of urine volumes from the scaled container and nurse’s forecast was evaluated for each of 4 measurements. When the urine volume was measured with the standard urine bag, the average volume was 550 cc in the first measurement while it was 300 cc with urofix. Mean values for the second, third and fourth measurements with standard urine bag and urofix were as follows respectively; 590 cc and 335 cc, 500 cc and 300 cc, 600 cc and 300 cc. The difference was statistically significant in all measurements (p<0.001).
Conclusion: In this study, urofix was the most reliable method for measuring urine output and fluid management. Furthermore, if the patient has a standard urine bag, it is recommended to confirm the urine output with a scaled container.

Anahtar Kelimeler

urine bag, urofix, fluid management, urine levels

Kaynakça

• 1- Brugnolli A, Canzan F, Bevilacqua A, et al. Fluid Therapy Management in Hospitalized Patients: Results From a Cross-sectional Study. Clinical Therapeutics. 2017; 39(2): 311-321.
• 2- Watson F, Austin P. Physiology of human fluid balanceAuthor links open overlay panel, Anaesthesia & Intensive Care Medicine. 2018; 19(9): 494-501
• 3- Lee J. Fluid And Electrolyte Disturbances In Critically Ill Patients. Electrolyte Blood Press. 2010; 8:72-81
• 4- Lobo D.N, Dube M.G, Neal K.R. et al. Perioperative fluid and electrolyte management: A survey of consultant surgeons in the UK. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2002; 84: 156-160
• 5- Lopes M.R, Oliveira M.A, Pereira V.O, et al: Goal-directed fluid management based on pulse pressure variation monitoring during high-risk surgery: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Crit Care 2007; 11: pp. R100
• 6- Chenitz K.B, Lane-Fall M.B. Decreased Urine Output and Acute Kidney Injury in the Postanesthesia Care Unit. Fleıshe L.A, Falk S.A, editors. Anesthesiology Clinics. Elsevier Inc; 2012; 30(3); p.513-26
• 7- Hersch M, Ainav S, Izbicki G. Accuracy and ease of use of a novel electronic urine output monitoring device compared with standard manual urinometer in the intensive care unit. Journal of Critical Care.2009; 24: 629.e13 – 629
• 8- Joosten A, Huynh T, Suehiro K, et al. Goal-Directed fluid therapy with closed-loop assistance during moderate risk surgery using noninvasive cardiac output monitoring: A pilot study. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2015;114(6):886–92
• 9- Grover C, Barney K. Operating safely in surgery and critical care with perioperative automation. J Healthc Inf Manag. 2004;18:56-61
• 10- Ricci Z, Cruz D, Ronco C. The RIFLE criteria and mortality in acute kidney injury: A systematic review. Kidney Int. 2008;73:538-46
• 11- Winner F, Weil MH, Carlson RN. Computer systems for facilitating management of the critically ill. Comput Biol Med. 1982;12:1-15
• 12- Otero A, Palacios F, Akinfiev T, Fernandez R. A Device for Automatically Measuring and Supervising the Critical Care Patient’S Urine Output. Sensors. 2010; 10: 934-951