English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

794 Others have pushed for early catheter removal but have admitted a higher chance of urinary extravasation. I think what is clear from this article is that surgeons have a choice they can leave the catheter in for a long period of time and not perform imaging or they can try to remove the catheter early but should perform imaging if they do so. With prolonged catheterization comes increased risk of urinary tract infection and patient discomfort. With early catheter removal comes the risk that about 1 in 5 will need the catheter replaced for another week or two due to extravasation on imaging. It would seem that for patients who live close to a reconstructive center, early catheter removal with imaging and a chance of catheter replacement may be preferable. For those who live far from their reconstructive surgeon or who want to minimize extra visits, a longer period of catheterization without subsequent imaging would be appropriate.

Long-term results of permanent urethral stent Memotherm implantation in the management of recurrent bulbar urethral stenosis