PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 18, 20260 citations

Role of α1-antagonists in postoperative urinary retention following lumbar spine surgery: a propensity score-matched analysis.

View Full Paper
TATravis J. AtchleyEmory UniversityEGEvan GrossUniversity of Alabama at BirminghamDEDagoberto Estévez-OrdoñezUniversity of Miami

Key Points

  • This study aims to assess the incidence of postoperative urinary retention (POUR) and the effects of α1-antagonist therapy in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery.
  • Retrospective review of patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery from 2015 to 2021.
  • Propensity score matching performed to analyze the effect of prophylactic α1-antagonists on POUR.
  • Random-effects model used to evaluate factors associated with POUR.
  • Incidence of POUR was found to be 8.8% among the matched cohort of 506 patients.
  • Use of prophylactic α1-antagonists was associated with a higher risk of POUR (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.07-3.52).
  • Female sex, intraoperative Foley catheter use, surgery duration, patient-controlled anesthesia, and postoperative UTI were significant factors affecting POUR risk.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Postoperative urinary retention (POUR) commonly occurs following elective lumbar spine surgery. POUR can result in prolonged admission, urinary tract infection (UTI), and patient morbidity. Prophylactic α1-antagonist therapy is often used to reduce the risk of this complication. The aim of this study was to identify the incidence of POUR in this population and determine the effect of prophylactic α1-antagonists using a propensity score (PS)-matched model. METHODS: This retrospective review included patients who underwent elective lumbar spine surgery at a single institution between 2015 and 2021. PSs were generated for the likelihood of receiving prophylactic α1-antagonists immediately after surgery. PS matching was performed using 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching (0.01 caliper) without replacement. From this matched cohort, a random-effects model accounting for variation in surgeon practice was used to assess factors associated with POUR. RESULTS: Overall, 2326 patients were identified and 506 were successfully PS matched. The overall incidence of POUR was 8.8%. Immediately postoperatively, 422 patients (18.1%) received prophylactic α1-antagonist therapy (treatment group) and 1904 patients did not (controls). Prior to matching, there were significant differences between the control and treatment groups. In the multivariable random-effects model of the 506 matched patients, POUR was associated with the use of prophylactic α1-antagonists after surgery (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.07-3.52), female sex (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.41-2.39), intraoperative Foley catheter use (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12-0.52), the normalized duration of surgery (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20-0.88), patient-controlled anesthesia use (RR 2.63, 95% CI 1.47-4.70), and postoperative UTI (RR 3.52, 95% CI 1.34-9.21). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic α1-antagonist use immediately after surgery did not reduce POUR, and patients who received prophylaxis were at greater risk of POUR in this large PS-matched analysis. Female sex was associated with a greater incidence of POUR while intraoperative Foley catheter use and a longer operative duration were associated with reduced risk of POUR. Potentially modifiable risk factors, such as patient-controlled anesthesia use and UTI, significantly increased the risk of POUR and thus should be addressed in the early postoperative setting.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Atchley et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0aaccf5ba8ef6d83b703ffhttps://doi.org/10.3171/2026.1.spine25406
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper