Table 3 Adherence to recommendations to prevent/diagnose urinary tract injury
From: Can centralised care of complex laparoscopic procedures prevent urinary tract injuries?
 | Number/105 | % |
|---|---|---|
Risk factors (RFs) | ||
 No RF | 13 | 12.4 |
 1 RF | 50 | 47.6 |
 2 RFs | 36 | 34.3 |
 3 RFs | 6 | 5.7 |
 Clinic documentation adequate (and leaflets)? | 105 | 100 |
 Difficulties documented? | 105 | 100 |
 Meticulous technique? | 105 | 100 |
Ureter identification: visual/otherwise | ||
 Yes | 97 | 92.4 |
 No (includes not documented) | 8 (2 ureteric injuries) | 7.6 |
Cystoscopy + ureteric stents/ureterogram/ureteroscopy | ||
 Yes | 29 | 27.6 |
 No | 76 | 72.4 |
Cystoscopy + indigo carmine |  |  |
 Yes | 60 | 57.1 |
 No | 45 | 42.9 |
 Cystoscopy alone | 8 | 7.6 |
 Bladder not checked by any means | 8 | 7.6 |
 Injury (total): | 3 | 2.8 |
  Bladder | 1 (bladder endometriosis) | 0.9 |
  Ureter | 2 (vault stitch/50% transection) | 1.9 |