Coated catheters for intermittent catheterization: smooth or sticky?
Coated catheters for intermittent catheterization: smooth or sticky?
Objective: To evaluate the current range of hydrophilic-coated catheters for intermittent self-catheterization, focusing on the adherence of the catheter to the urethral mucosa at the end of catheterization.
Subjects and methods: In a prospective randomized study, 61 community-based men tested each of four different hydrophilic-coated catheters available in the UK at the time. Subjects used each of the four test catheters for 1 week in a random order, and were provided with the number and size of catheter they normally used. To assess the products, the subjects: (i) timed seven catheterizations using a stop-watch to determine the time taken from extracting the catheter from the water-filled package, to removing the catheter from the penis, having emptied the bladder; (ii) recorded the severity of 'sticking' on catheter removal on a three-point scale (not at all, a little, a lot); and (iii) completed a product-performance questionnaire.
Results: There were no significant differences in ratings of 'sticking' between the 'Easicath' and 'Lofric' (P > 0.05), but there were significant differences between these two products and the 'Aquacath' and the 'Silky', which were found to 'stick' more (P < 0.001). The 'Silky' was reported to stick significantly more than the 'Aquacath' (P < 0.001).
Conclusions: Adherence to the urethral mucosa on catheter removal was a common problem, occurring with all catheters, but two products were significantly more likely to stick than the other two. The clinical importance of 'sticking' and the long-term implications are currently unknown. The relative 'sticking' of uncoated catheters has also not been established.
intermittent catheterization, product evaluation, urinary incontinence, catheters
373-377
Fader, M.
c318f942-2ddb-462a-9183-8b678faf7277
Moore, K.N.
b3a46c9f-9449-4b9c-8f8e-53bf5439d403
Cottenden, A.M.
264b07aa-fe35-4045-ab3f-e61f2cb9ebe8
Pettersson, L.
5b52b4ef-3d89-493a-92d3-e4c4752107ea
Brooks, R.
c147b4e8-cc8c-484b-a444-67c3bb418488
Malone-Lee, J.
999c7f30-45af-4078-8e5e-5f003b4c31fc
September 2001
Fader, M.
c318f942-2ddb-462a-9183-8b678faf7277
Moore, K.N.
b3a46c9f-9449-4b9c-8f8e-53bf5439d403
Cottenden, A.M.
264b07aa-fe35-4045-ab3f-e61f2cb9ebe8
Pettersson, L.
5b52b4ef-3d89-493a-92d3-e4c4752107ea
Brooks, R.
c147b4e8-cc8c-484b-a444-67c3bb418488
Malone-Lee, J.
999c7f30-45af-4078-8e5e-5f003b4c31fc
Fader, M., Moore, K.N., Cottenden, A.M., Pettersson, L., Brooks, R. and Malone-Lee, J.
(2001)
Coated catheters for intermittent catheterization: smooth or sticky?
BJU International, 88 (4), .
(doi:10.1046/j.1464-410X.2001.02342.x).
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the current range of hydrophilic-coated catheters for intermittent self-catheterization, focusing on the adherence of the catheter to the urethral mucosa at the end of catheterization.
Subjects and methods: In a prospective randomized study, 61 community-based men tested each of four different hydrophilic-coated catheters available in the UK at the time. Subjects used each of the four test catheters for 1 week in a random order, and were provided with the number and size of catheter they normally used. To assess the products, the subjects: (i) timed seven catheterizations using a stop-watch to determine the time taken from extracting the catheter from the water-filled package, to removing the catheter from the penis, having emptied the bladder; (ii) recorded the severity of 'sticking' on catheter removal on a three-point scale (not at all, a little, a lot); and (iii) completed a product-performance questionnaire.
Results: There were no significant differences in ratings of 'sticking' between the 'Easicath' and 'Lofric' (P > 0.05), but there were significant differences between these two products and the 'Aquacath' and the 'Silky', which were found to 'stick' more (P < 0.001). The 'Silky' was reported to stick significantly more than the 'Aquacath' (P < 0.001).
Conclusions: Adherence to the urethral mucosa on catheter removal was a common problem, occurring with all catheters, but two products were significantly more likely to stick than the other two. The clinical importance of 'sticking' and the long-term implications are currently unknown. The relative 'sticking' of uncoated catheters has also not been established.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Published date: September 2001
Keywords:
intermittent catheterization, product evaluation, urinary incontinence, catheters
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 19234
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/19234
ISSN: 1464-4096
PURE UUID: 74801a50-cd23-4d66-9ced-57fe6f5cc3cb
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 01 Feb 2006
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 06:13
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
K.N. Moore
Author:
A.M. Cottenden
Author:
L. Pettersson
Author:
R. Brooks
Author:
J. Malone-Lee
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics