Comparison of the use of conventional, hydrophilic and gel-lubricated catheters with regard to urethral micro trauma, urinary system infection, and patient satisfaction in patients with spinal cord injury: a randomized controlled study

dc.contributor.authorSarica, S.
dc.contributor.authorAkkoc, Y.
dc.contributor.authorKarapolat, H.
dc.contributor.authorAktug, H.
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-27T21:29:08Z
dc.date.available2019-10-27T21:29:08Z
dc.date.issued2010
dc.departmentEge Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractBackground. Management of the lower urinary tract is crucially important in patients with spinal cord injuries in order to prevent damage to the upper urinary tract and to preserve renal function. Aim. This study was designed to compare the use of standard polyvinyl chloride (PVC), hydrophilic-coated, and gel-lubricated non-hydrophilic catheters with regard to urethral micro trauma, urinary system infection, and patient satisfaction in patients with spinal cord injuries. Study design. Randomized, controlled study. Setting. University hospital, inpatient clinic. Population. Twenty-five male patients with spinal cord injuries. Methods. The patients were asked to use 3 different types of catheters. The selection of catheter order was determined randomly, and all 3 catheters were used for 6 weeks consecutively. All patients were assessed at the beginning of treatment and at weeks 6, 12, and 18, in terms of urethral cytology, urinalysis, urine culture, and patient satisfaction (Visual Analog Scale, VAS). Results. Ten patients completed the study. Regarding the urethral trauma evaluation, urethral cell counts were reduced with gel-lubricated non-hydrophilic catheter use (P<0.05), increased with PVC catheter use (P<0.05), and showed no change with hydrophilic-coated catheter use (P>0.05). The number of leucocytes in the urine sediment was significantly reduced after gel-lubricated catheter use (P<0.05). There was significantly less micro-hematuria with hydrophilic-coated and gel-lubricated non-hydrophilic catheter use compared with PVC catheter use (P<0.05). There were no significant differences among catheters with respect to symptomatic urinary tract infection and microbiological analysis of urine culture (P>0.05). The mean VAS was better with the gel-lubricated non-hydrophilic catheter than with the other two catheter types (P<0.05). Conclusion. The hydrophilic-coated catheter and especially the gel-lubricated non-hydrophilic catheter reduce trauma to the urethral surfaces and enable easy and comfortable catheterization. Clinical rehabilitation impact. The hydrophilic and gel-lubricated catheters represent an attractive alternative to standard PVC catheters for urological rehabilitation in patients with spinal cord injuries.en_US
dc.identifier.endpage480en_US
dc.identifier.issn1973-9087
dc.identifier.issn1973-9095
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.pmid20445490en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1en_US
dc.identifier.startpage473en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11454/45252
dc.identifier.volume46en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000286687600001en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityN/Aen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherEdizioni Minerva Medicaen_US
dc.relation.ispartofEuropean Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicineen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectSpinal cord injuriesen_US
dc.subjectUrinary bladder, neurogenicen_US
dc.subjectUrinary tract infectionsen_US
dc.subjectPatient satisfactionen_US
dc.titleComparison of the use of conventional, hydrophilic and gel-lubricated catheters with regard to urethral micro trauma, urinary system infection, and patient satisfaction in patients with spinal cord injury: a randomized controlled studyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar