Journal of endourology · 2016
In Vivo Trial of a Novel Atraumatic Urinary Catheter Design for Prevention of Catheter-Induced Trauma.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Azar Ramyar, Shadpour Pejman
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Clinically significant urinary tract infection may be the most familiar complication of urinary catheterization; however, catheter-associated trauma can entail even more significant morbidity. We have designed and patented a novel atraumatic urinary catheter (AUC) and through this study, we compare its efficacy with the conventional Foley catheter (FC) in vivo.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty male rabbits were divided into two equal groups for FC and AUC. The animals were catheterized on day 4 for 8 hours to compare the maintenance of the tubes and sedated before standardized forcible extraction of the catheter under sedation with the balloon still inflated. They were then examined visually and by cystoscopy.
RESULTS: In a number of animals in either group, the catheters failed to drain urine effectively due to anatomical issues. Those were excluded from the study. At the extraction phase, evidence of urethral trauma was found in 13 of 15 FC rabbits, but only in 4 of 14 in the AUC group (p = 0.009). Major trauma, however, was exclusively seen in the FC group, with 12 of 15 subjects sustaining deep lacerations or urethral disruption.
CONCLUSION: The two catheters bear similar efficacy for maintaining urine drainage; however, traumatic injury is significantly less common following forceful extraction of the AUC than a conventional Foley.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty male rabbits were divided into two equal groups for FC and AUC. The animals were catheterized on day 4 for 8 hours to compare the maintenance of the tubes and sedated before standardized forcible extraction of the catheter under sedation with the balloon still inflated. They were then examined visually and by cystoscopy.
RESULTS: In a number of animals in either group, the catheters failed to drain urine effectively due to anatomical issues. Those were excluded from the study. At the extraction phase, evidence of urethral trauma was found in 13 of 15 FC rabbits, but only in 4 of 14 in the AUC group (p = 0.009). Major trauma, however, was exclusively seen in the FC group, with 12 of 15 subjects sustaining deep lacerations or urethral disruption.
CONCLUSION: The two catheters bear similar efficacy for maintaining urine drainage; however, traumatic injury is significantly less common following forceful extraction of the AUC than a conventional Foley.