Rg. Frezieres et Tl. Walsh, Acceptability evaluation of a natural rubber latex, a polyurethane, and a new non-latex condom, CONTRACEPT, 61(6), 2000, pp. 369-377
After more than a century of reliance on latex condoms, male condoms fabric
ated from new materials are finally becoming commercially available to cons
umers. This study was an ol,cn label acceptability study that compared thre
e lubricated condom products during vaginal intercourse: a natural rubber l
atex condom, a polyurethane condom, and a new non-latex (styrene ethylene b
utylene styrene, SEBS) condom. Fifty-four couples who were using condoms fo
r birth control were Enrolled in this three-way crossover study. Each coupl
e tested three condoms of each type in a randomized sequence. Couples repor
ted condom performance after each use and rated condom acceptability after
use of three condoms of each type At the completion of the study, participa
nts selected their preferred condom type for overall acceptability, sensiti
vity, case of use, appearance, and comfort. All three condom types had low
clinical breakage and slippage rates (less than or equal to 3.3%) although
the polyurethane condom did not perform as well in other measures of perfor
mance including unrolling, discomfort, stretching, bunching, and sliding al
ong the penis during intercourse. None of the condom types were statistical
ly preferred overall [males: natural rubber latex 37%, poly-urethane 24%, n
ew non-latex (SEBS) 37%, no preference 2%; females: natural rubber latex 33
%, polyurethane 27%, new non-latex 37%, no preference 2%]. A statistically
higher proportion of couples preferred both the natural rubber latex condom
and the new non-latex condom above the polyurethane condom for case of unr
olling, and the natural rubber latex condom above the other condom types fo
r perceived safety. Approximately two-thirds of both male and female partic
ipants preferred one of the two condoms made of synthetic materials suggest
ing that consumers will appreciate the availability of these products. CONT
RACEPTION 2000; 61:369-377 (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserv
ed.