A trial of devices for urinary incontinence following treatment for prostate cancer
A trial of devices for urinary incontinence following treatment for prostate cancer
Objective: •? To compare performance of three continence management devices and absorbent pads used by men with persistent urinary incontinence (> 1yr) post treatment for prostate cancer. •? Patients and Methods •? Randomised, controlled trial of 56 men with one year follow up. •? Three devices were tested for three weeks each: sheath drainage system, body-worn urinal, penile clamp. Device and pad performance were assessed. •? Quality of life (QOL) was measured at baseline and follow-up with the King's Health Questionnaire. •? Stated (intended use) and revealed (actual use) preference for products was assessed •? Value-for-money was gathered.
Results: substantial and significant differences in performance were found: •? Sheath: good for extended use (e.g. golf and travel) when pad changing is difficult. Good for keeping skin dry, not leaking, not smelling and convenient for storage and travel; •? Body-worn urinal: generally rated worse than the sheath and was mainly used for similar activities but by men who could not use a sheath (e.g. retracted penis); not good for seated activities. •? Clamp: good for short vigorous activities like swimming/exercise. Most secure, least likely to leak, most discreet but almost all men described it as uncomfortable or painful. •? Pads: good for everyday activities and best for night-time use. Most easy to use, comfortable when dry but most likely to leak and most uncomfortable when wet. •? A preference for having a mixture of products to meet daytime needs; around two thirds of men were using a combination of pads and devices after testing compared to baseline.
Conclusions: this is the first trial to systematically compare different continence management devices for men •? Pads and devices have different strengths which make them particularly suited to certain circumstances and activities. •? Most men prefer to use pads at night but would choose a mixture of pads and devices during the day. •? Device limitations were important but may be overcome by better design
432-442
Macaulay, M.
505970d3-1e67-4c1f-8291-3a950d336c6b
Broadbridge, J.
7dbea295-7135-4260-af4d-c5c76e2553c4
Gage, H.
6ab13ea1-cd2c-4028-890e-778c140c35ae
Williams, P.
f9438e1e-9cc3-4dfb-9246-a2cc2405182d
Birch, B.
536ee8d2-9cf9-4412-a29b-d2267fa9d765
Moore, K.N.
0f0c315d-93bd-4231-8ad1-aa11ac9dbf10
Cottenden, A.
28e7146a-44b1-4e89-8b37-91f994c04eb3
Fader, M.J.
c318f942-2ddb-462a-9183-8b678faf7277
11 August 2015
Macaulay, M.
505970d3-1e67-4c1f-8291-3a950d336c6b
Broadbridge, J.
7dbea295-7135-4260-af4d-c5c76e2553c4
Gage, H.
6ab13ea1-cd2c-4028-890e-778c140c35ae
Williams, P.
f9438e1e-9cc3-4dfb-9246-a2cc2405182d
Birch, B.
536ee8d2-9cf9-4412-a29b-d2267fa9d765
Moore, K.N.
0f0c315d-93bd-4231-8ad1-aa11ac9dbf10
Cottenden, A.
28e7146a-44b1-4e89-8b37-91f994c04eb3
Fader, M.J.
c318f942-2ddb-462a-9183-8b678faf7277
Macaulay, M., Broadbridge, J., Gage, H., Williams, P., Birch, B., Moore, K.N., Cottenden, A. and Fader, M.J.
(2015)
A trial of devices for urinary incontinence following treatment for prostate cancer.
BJU International, 116 (3), .
(doi:10.1111/bju.13016).
(PMID:25496354)
Abstract
Objective: •? To compare performance of three continence management devices and absorbent pads used by men with persistent urinary incontinence (> 1yr) post treatment for prostate cancer. •? Patients and Methods •? Randomised, controlled trial of 56 men with one year follow up. •? Three devices were tested for three weeks each: sheath drainage system, body-worn urinal, penile clamp. Device and pad performance were assessed. •? Quality of life (QOL) was measured at baseline and follow-up with the King's Health Questionnaire. •? Stated (intended use) and revealed (actual use) preference for products was assessed •? Value-for-money was gathered.
Results: substantial and significant differences in performance were found: •? Sheath: good for extended use (e.g. golf and travel) when pad changing is difficult. Good for keeping skin dry, not leaking, not smelling and convenient for storage and travel; •? Body-worn urinal: generally rated worse than the sheath and was mainly used for similar activities but by men who could not use a sheath (e.g. retracted penis); not good for seated activities. •? Clamp: good for short vigorous activities like swimming/exercise. Most secure, least likely to leak, most discreet but almost all men described it as uncomfortable or painful. •? Pads: good for everyday activities and best for night-time use. Most easy to use, comfortable when dry but most likely to leak and most uncomfortable when wet. •? A preference for having a mixture of products to meet daytime needs; around two thirds of men were using a combination of pads and devices after testing compared to baseline.
Conclusions: this is the first trial to systematically compare different continence management devices for men •? Pads and devices have different strengths which make them particularly suited to certain circumstances and activities. •? Most men prefer to use pads at night but would choose a mixture of pads and devices during the day. •? Device limitations were important but may be overcome by better design
Text
__userfiles.soton.ac.uk_Users_mb17g08_mydesktop_Male Urinary Devices text 170614.docx
- Accepted Manuscript
Text
__userfiles.soton.ac.uk_Users_mb17g08_mydesktop_Male Urinary Devices Figures 180614.docx
- Other
Text
__userfiles.soton.ac.uk_Users_mb17g08_mydesktop_Male Urinary Devices title page 170614.docx
- Other
Text
__userfiles.soton.ac.uk_Users_mb17g08_mydesktop_bju13016.pdf
- Other
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 11 December 2014
e-pub ahead of print date: 6 April 2015
Published date: 11 August 2015
Organisations:
Faculty of Health Sciences
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 374433
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/374433
ISSN: 1464-4096
PURE UUID: eedde099-4d2f-4750-841d-88ed6ea208af
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 17 Feb 2015 10:41
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 03:59
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
H. Gage
Author:
P. Williams
Author:
B. Birch
Author:
K.N. Moore
Author:
A. Cottenden
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
