Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare bacteriological urinalysis findings using 3 urinary sample collection methods (clean stoma catheterization, urine dripping from the stoma, urine collected from the clean urostomy pouch) in ileal conduit urinary diversion patients.
DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial.
SAMPLE AND SETTING: Twenty-seven patients with ileal conduit urinary diversion from an outpatient urology clinic were enrolled; 9 patients were seen twice, for a total of 36 subjects and comparisons.
METHODS: Data were collected during a clinic visit by a trained research nurse. Patients were randomized into 2 groups: group A had the first urine sample collected by clean stoma catheterization, followed by sample collection by urine dripping from the stoma; group B had the first urine sample collection by urine dripping from the stoma, followed by sample collected by clean stoma catheterization. All patients had a third urine sample collected from a factory-clean urostomy pouch. Bacteriological urinalysis findings were compared among methods. Descriptive analyses were summarized using mean, percentage, and frequency. The mean ages of the patients between the groups were compared with the t test. Other between-group comparisons were performed using the Fisher exact test. Urinary culture finding differences among the same patients were evaluated using the McNemar test. Sensitivity and specificity of the different urine sample collection methods were calculated assuming urine sample collection by catheterization as a reference method.
RESULTS: Uropathogen bacteria were detected in urinary culture in 16 of 36 samples (44%) collected by clean stoma catheterization, 15 of 36 samples (42%) collected by urine dripping directly from the stoma, and 13 of 35 samples (37%) collected from the clean urostomy pouch. Significant differences among the urine collection methods were not detected. Assuming catheterization as the most reliable method of sample collection, the sensitivity and specificity of the urine dripping from stoma collection method were 81.3% and 90.0%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the urostomy pouch collection method were 73.3% and 90.0%, respectively. Among the same patients, there were no significant differences in the incidence of uropathogen bacteria when clean stoma catheterization was compared with urine dripping from the stoma and urostomy pouch methods.
CONCLUSION: This study provides clinically relevant information regarding urine collection methods in ileal conduit patients. Urinary sample collection by urine dripping directly from the stoma or collected from a clean urostomy pouch provided similar uropathogen bacteria findings compared with sample collection by clean stoma catheterization.