Progres en urologie : journal de l'Association francaise d'urologie et de la Societe francaise d'urologie · 2006
[Comparative study of the acceptability of the SpeediCath Set and Actreen set catheterization sets in patients performing self-catheterization].
Сравнительное исследованиеАннотация на английскомСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Leriche Albert, Charvier Kathleen, Bonniaud Véronique, Peyrat Laurence, N'guyen Philippe, Soler Jean-Marc, Chapuis André, Egon Guy
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare SpeediCath Set to Actreen Set in terms of performance, acceptability and safety, in patients performing self-catheterization.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four questionnaires were completed during this multicentre, randomized, crossover study: initial, after having tested each of the two products and patient preference at the end of the study.
RESULTS: Analysis was based on 29 men performing self-catheterization. The SpeediCath Set was found to be superior to the Actreen Set in terms of ease of introduction (p=0.0055), ease of emptying (p=0.0157), quality of lubricant (p<0.0001), urethral tolerance and possibility of catheterization in bed (p= 0.0157). The patients 'global assessment was clearly in favour of SpeediCath Set (70 +/- 2.3 versus 5.7 +/- 2.5; p=0.0156) and 65.5% of patients preferred to use SpeediCath Set in the future.
CONCLUSION: SpeediCath Set facilitates catheterization and improves the urethral tolerance compared to Actreen Set, with a marked patient preference in favour of SpeediCath Set.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four questionnaires were completed during this multicentre, randomized, crossover study: initial, after having tested each of the two products and patient preference at the end of the study.
RESULTS: Analysis was based on 29 men performing self-catheterization. The SpeediCath Set was found to be superior to the Actreen Set in terms of ease of introduction (p=0.0055), ease of emptying (p=0.0157), quality of lubricant (p<0.0001), urethral tolerance and possibility of catheterization in bed (p= 0.0157). The patients 'global assessment was clearly in favour of SpeediCath Set (70 +/- 2.3 versus 5.7 +/- 2.5; p=0.0156) and 65.5% of patients preferred to use SpeediCath Set in the future.
CONCLUSION: SpeediCath Set facilitates catheterization and improves the urethral tolerance compared to Actreen Set, with a marked patient preference in favour of SpeediCath Set.