Evaluation of the use of Urocath-Gel super(+) catheters for intermittent self-catheterization by male patients using conventional catheters for a long time

• Published in: Spinal cord Vol. 38; no. 2; pp. 97 - 99
• Main Authors: Wyndaele, J J, De Ridder, D, Everaert, K, Heilporn, A, Congard-Chassol, B
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 01.02.2000
• ISSN: 1362-4393
• DOI: 10.1038/sj.sc.3100958

STUDY DESIGN::Prospective study of intermittent self-catheterization (CIC) with change from conventional catheter to low-friction Urocath-Gel super(+) catheter. OBJECTIVES::To evaluate if such catheters are well accepted and to evaluate their practical use. METHODS::Thirty-nine male patients, between 19 and 74 years old, performing clean intermittent self-catheterization with conventional catheters for a neuropathic bladder for many years were included in this study after written informed consent. Exclusion criteria were clinical urinary tract infection, acute infection of urethra, prostate or epididymis, untreated urethral strictures and false passages or severe urethral bleeding occurring within the last month. During 1 month they changed to the use of the Urocath-Gel super(+) catheter. Complications were noted. Satisfaction was evaluated by a visual analogue scale and by questioning. RESULTS::Four patients did not complete the study, two for side effects, two for difficulties with the catheterization technique. Time needed for CIC was not different with both techniques. Difficult introduction or difficult retreat of the catheter were not different in frequency. Impossibility to introduce the catheter was less frequent. Urethritis and urethral bleeding were less frequent than during the use of conventional catheters. Satisfaction was better with the low friction catheters. Negative satisfaction was mainly related to the availability and the use of water to lubricate the catheter, difficulty of manipulation and fear for cost. CONCLUSION::The hydrophilic catheter Urocath-Gel super(+) proved as easy to use as conventional catheters but was better tolerated. Satisfaction was better especially in patients who experienced problems with conventional catheters. Some patients were unsatisfied for reasons of practical use or for economical reasons. SPINAL CORD: (2000) 38, 97-99.