Coated catheters for intermittent catheterization: smooth or sticky?

Objective To evaluate the current range of hydrophilic-coated catheters for intermittent self-catheterization, focusing on the adherence of the cathet er to the urethral mucosa at the end of catheterization. Subjects and methods In a prospective randomized study, 61 community-based men tested each of four different. hydrophilic-coated catheters available i n the UK at the time. Subjects used each of the four test catheters for I w eek in a random order, and were provided with the number and size of cathet er they normally used. To assess the products, the subjects: (i) timed seve n catheterizations using a stop-watch to determine the time taken from extr acting the catheter from the water-filled package, to removing the catheter from the penis, having emptied the bladder: (ii) recorded the severity of 'sticking' on catheter removal on a three-point scale (not at all, a little , a lot): and (iii) completed a product-performance questionnaire. Results There were no significant differences in ratings of 'sticking' betw een the 'Easicath' and 'Lofric' (P > 0.05), but there were significant diff erences between these two products and the 'Aquacath' and the 'Silky', whic h were found to 'stick' more (P < 0.001). The 'Silky' was reported to stick significantly more than the 'Aquacath' (P < 0.001). Conclusions Adherence to the urethral mucosa on catheter removal was a comm on problem, occurring with all catheters, but two products were significant ly more likely to stick than the other two. The clinical importance of 'sti cking' and the long-term implications are currently unknown. The relative ' sticking' of uncoated catheters has also not been established.