Literature DB >> 32999268

The evidence supporting single-use intermittent catheters in people with spinal cord injury.

Peter Wayne New1,2,3,4.   

Abstract

Intermittent catheterization (IMC) is the accepted evidence-based best practice for bladder management in people with voiding dysfunction due to neurogenic bladder. The two methods for performing IMC over the decades since this practice was introduced are reuse and single-use catheters. There are perceived advantages and disadvantages of each method of performing IMC. There is considerable evidence that single-use IMC is associated with better health outcomes, including reduced risk of urinary tract infection, urethral trauma, and quality of life. People performing IMC also indicate a preference for single-use, although there are advantages of reuse that need to be acknowledged. Ideally, further research is needed in this area, particularly around the washing and storage of reuse catheters, as well as an adequately powered multicenter RCT comparing reuse with single-use IMC, but there are numerous challenges associated with progressing this research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32999268      PMCID: PMC7528086          DOI: 10.1038/s41394-020-00339-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spinal Cord Ser Cases        ISSN: 2058-6124


  14 in total

Review 1.  Intermittent catheterization with hydrophilic catheters as a treatment of chronic neurogenic urinary retention.

Authors:  Emmanuel Chartier-Kastler; Pierre Denys
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2010-10-06       Impact factor: 2.696

2.  Results of a prospective randomized control trial comparing hydrophilic to uncoated catheters in children with neurogenic bladder.

Authors:  William DeFoor; Pramod Reddy; Melissa Reed; Brian VanderBrink; Elizabeth Jackson; Bin Zhang; Julie Denlinger; Paul Noh; Eugene Minevich; Curtis Sheldon
Journal:  J Pediatr Urol       Date:  2017-07-04       Impact factor: 1.830

3.  The cost of a catheter: An environmental perspective on single use clean intermittent catheterization.

Authors:  Andrew J Sun; Craig V Comiter; Christopher S Elliott
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2018-08-14       Impact factor: 2.696

Review 4.  Clean intermittent catheterization revisited.

Authors:  Eliza Lamin; Diane K Newman
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 2.370

5.  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

Review 6.  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

7.  The value of intermittent catheterisation in the early management of traumatic paraplegia and tetraplegia.

Authors:  L Guttmann; H Frankel
Journal:  Paraplegia       Date:  1966-08

Review 8.  Outcome comparison of different approaches to self-intermittent catheterization in neurogenic patients: a systematic review.

Authors:  S Shamout; X Biardeau; J Corcos; L Campeau
Journal:  Spinal Cord       Date:  2017-01-24       Impact factor: 2.772

9.  Clean intermittent self-catheterization: a burden for the patient?

Authors:  Thomas M Kessler; Gloria Ryu; Fiona C Burkhard
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 2.696

10.  Intermittent Catheterization: The Devil Is in the Details.

Authors:  Kathleen Christison; Matthias Walter; Jean-Jacques J M Wyndaele; Michael Kennelly; Thomas M Kessler; Vanessa K Noonan; Nader Fallah; Andrei V Krassioukov
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 5.269

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.