BJU international · 2001
Coated catheters for intermittent catheterization: smooth or sticky?
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное 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.
Fader M, Moore K N, Cottenden A M, Pettersson L, Brooks R, Malone-Lee J
Аннотация
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.
PATIENTS 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.
PATIENTS 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.