PURPOSE: We compared a recently developed hydrophilic catheter to the standard polyethylene catheter in regard to hematuria, infection and patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A hydrophilic LoFric or standard Mentor catheter was assigned at random to 17 and 16 boys, respectively, who were skilled in intermittent self-catheterization. They were evaluated by weekly urinalysis and a questionnaire. RESULTS: Significantly fewer episodes of microscopic hematuria occurred in the LoFric than Mentor catheter group (9 episodes in 6 subjects versus 19 episodes in 11, p < 0.05). There were also fewer episodes of bacteriuria in the LoFric group but the difference was not statistically significant. Mean scores plus or minus standard deviation on a visual analogue scale with 0 equal to most and 10 equal to least favorable were LoFric 3.3 +/- 2.8 versus Mentor 4.9 +/- 2.7 for catheter convenience and 2.7 +/- 2.4 versus 4.2 +/- 2.6 for insertion comfort, significantly favoring the LoFric group (p < 0.05 for both). Of the 16 LoFric subjects 13 preferred to continue its use, particularly those with a history of urethral trauma or sphincteric spasm. CONCLUSIONS: In boys the LoFric catheter appears to cause less trauma. Although it is not reusable and is more expensive than the standard catheter, satisfaction is higher with the LoFric device and for select patients it has significant advantages.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: We compared a recently developed hydrophilic catheter to the standard polyethylene catheter in regard to hematuria, infection and patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A hydrophilic LoFric or standard Mentor catheter was assigned at random to 17 and 16 boys, respectively, who were skilled in intermittent self-catheterization. They were evaluated by weekly urinalysis and a questionnaire. RESULTS: Significantly fewer episodes of microscopic hematuria occurred in the LoFric than Mentor catheter group (9 episodes in 6 subjects versus 19 episodes in 11, p < 0.05). There were also fewer episodes of bacteriuria in the LoFric group but the difference was not statistically significant. Mean scores plus or minus standard deviation on a visual analogue scale with 0 equal to most and 10 equal to least favorable were LoFric 3.3 +/- 2.8 versus Mentor 4.9 +/- 2.7 for catheter convenience and 2.7 +/- 2.4 versus 4.2 +/- 2.6 for insertion comfort, significantly favoring the LoFric group (p < 0.05 for both). Of the 16 LoFric subjects 13 preferred to continue its use, particularly those with a history of urethral trauma or sphincteric spasm. CONCLUSIONS: In boys the LoFric catheter appears to cause less trauma. Although it is not reusable and is more expensive than the standard catheter, satisfaction is higher with the LoFric device and for select patients it has significant advantages.
Authors: Lysanne Campeau; Samer Shamout; Richard J Baverstock; Kevin V Carlson; Dean S Elterman; Duane R Hickling; Stephen S Steele; Blayne Welk Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 1.862