Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Coated catheters for intermittent catheterization: smooth or sticky?

2001; Wiley; Volume: 88; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.02342.x

1464-410X

Mandy Fader, Katherine Moore, Alan Cottenden, L Pettersson, Rachel Brooks, James Malone‐Lee,

Pelvic floor disorders treatments

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.