Coated catheters for intermittent catheterization: smooth or sticky?

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the current range of hydrophiliccoated 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-®lled package, to removing the catheter from the penis, having emptied the bladder; (ii) recorded the severity of`sticking' on catheter removal on a threepoint scale (not at all, a little, a lot); and (iii) completed a product-performance questionnaire.Results There were no signi®cant differences in ratings of`sticking' between the`Easicath' and`Lofric' (P>0.05), but there were signi®cant 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 signi®cantly 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 signi®cantly 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.

Intermittent catheterization with hydrophilic catheters as a treatment of chronic neurogenic urinary retention

“…19 In a population of community-based IC users, there was no difference in ratings of sticking between EasiCath and Lofric, although other brands of hydrophilic catheter (Aquacath [Seton Continence Care, Oldham, UK] and Silky [Sims Portex, Hythe, UK]) were perceived to be more sticky. 30 Differences in surface properties among hydrophilic catheters may influence the incidence of urethral complications and may also contribute to patient satisfaction by affecting comfort and ease of use.…”

“…57 They also expressed a wish to switch from PVC to Lofric. 58 Other studies have included patients with neurogenic bladder in mixed populations, 28,30,59,60 but as the data are not separately reported for the neurogenic patients, interpretation is difficult.…”

Randomized Crossover Trial of Single Use Hydrophilic Coated vs Multiple Use Polyvinylchloride Catheters for Intermittent Catheterization to Determine Incidence of Urinary Infection

“…15 All diary and demographic data were entered into a secure database by an impartial technician. It was impossible to blind subjects to product.…”

Gadolinium‐based contrast agents and nephrotoxicity

“…Insertion of the catheter was significantly more painful in healthy volunteers catheterized with Lofric compared with SpeediCath in a participant‐blinded crossover study 19. In a population of community‐based IC users, there was no difference in ratings of sticking between EasiCath and Lofric, although other brands of hydrophilic catheter (Aquacath [Seton Continence Care, Oldham, UK] and Silky [Sims Portex, Hythe, UK]) were perceived to be more sticky 30. Differences in surface properties among hydrophilic catheters may influence the incidence of urethral complications and may also contribute to patient satisfaction by affecting comfort and ease of use.…”