Literature DB >> 21749816

Hydrophilic-coated catheter appreciation study in a pediatric population.

Andréanne Boucher1, Jonathan Cloutier, Sylvie Lebel, Micheline Hamel, Pascale Lamontagne, Stéphane Bolduc.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the paper was to compare the satisfaction of hydrophilic-coated catheters (HC) (SpeediCath, Coloplast Canada, Mississauga, ON) versus uncoated catheters in a pediatric neurogenic bladder population, in order to identify a target group for HC. The main hypothesis was that our patients, with regard to their limitations, might have difficulties using the HC.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A comparative prospective study was initiated in one pediatric rehabilitation centre. Out of the 39 patients who tried the HC during a routine clinic visit, 31 patients/parents accepted to participate in a 1-week trial and to answer a satisfaction questionnaire. Their medical records were reviewed for age, neurological disease, intellectual deficit, impaired dexterity and method of catheterization (Mitrofanoff/urethra).
RESULTS: Thirty of the 31 patients answered the satisfaction questionnaire. The median age for the 30 patients was 13.5 years (range 6-20 years). Of these patients, 19 were females (63%), 26 performed self-catheterization (87%), and 6 had Mitrofanoff (20%). Ten children (33%) would be ready to proceed with HC and all 10 children would receive catheterization by the urethra. Of these, 9 were females (90%), 8 used compact-HC (80%) and all were self-sufficient. Patients using compact-HC would continue with this catheter. In the patient comments, males catheterizing per-urethra and patients using a continent stoma requiring long catheters had problems with the excess of lubricant.
CONCLUSION: Most children preferred their usual uncoated catheter and would not change for HC. Female patients catheterizing per-urethra with a compact-HC seem to benefit most from this catheter.

Entities:  

Year:  2010        PMID: 21749816      PMCID: PMC3038373          DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.09138

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J        ISSN: 1911-6470            Impact factor:   1.862


  6 in total

1.  Clean, intermittent self-catheterization in the treatment of urinary tract disease.

Authors:  J Lapides; A C Diokno; S J Silber; B S Lowe
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1972-03       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Intermittent catheterisation with hydrophilic-coated catheters (SpeediCath) reduces the risk of clinical urinary tract infection in spinal cord injured patients: a prospective randomised parallel comparative trial.

Authors:  D J M K De Ridder; K Everaert; L García Fernández; J V Forner Valero; A Borau Durán; M L Jauregui Abrisqueta; M G Ventura; A Rodriguez Sotillo
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2005-08-15       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 3.  Hydrophilic versus non-coated catheters for intermittent catheterization.

Authors:  H Hedlund; K Hjelmås; O Jonsson; P Klarskov; M Talja
Journal:  Scand J Urol Nephrol       Date:  2001-02

4.  Hydrophilic-coated catheters for intermittent catheterisation reduce urethral micro trauma: a prospective, randomised, participant-blinded, crossover study of three different types of catheters.

Authors:  J Stensballe; D Looms; P N Nielsen; M Tvede
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2005-08-02       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  Residual urine after intermittent catheterization in females using two different catheters.

Authors:  Fin Biering-Sørensen; Hanne V Hansen; Pia N Nielsen; Dagnia Looms
Journal:  Scand J Urol Nephrol       Date:  2007

6.  Patient experience with hydrophilic catheters used in clean intermittent catheterization.

Authors:  Seppo Taskinen; Riitta Fagerholm; Mirja Ruutu
Journal:  J Pediatr Urol       Date:  2008-03-24       Impact factor: 1.830

  6 in total
  2 in total

Review 1.  The management of childhood urinary incontinence.

Authors:  Michal Maternik; Katarzyna Krzeminska; Aleksandra Zurowska
Journal:  Pediatr Nephrol       Date:  2014-03-11       Impact factor: 3.714

Review 2.  A scoping review on the impact of hydrophilic versus non-hydrophilic intermittent catheters on UTI, QoL, satisfaction, preference, and other outcomes in neurogenic and non-neurogenic patients suffering from urinary retention.

Authors:  Kim Bundvig Barken; Rikke Vaabengaard
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2022-09-19       Impact factor: 2.090

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.