Comparative study of the degree of patient satisfaction in intermittent catheterization with Lofric and polyvinyl chloride catheters

• Autor(a) principal: Pereira, P.
• Data de Publicação: 2001
• Outros Autores: Urrutia, M., Lobato, L., Rivas, S., Monereo, E.
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: spa
• Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
• Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.16/728

Actas Urol Esp. 2001 Nov-Dec;25(10):725-30. [Comparative study of the degree of patient satisfaction in intermittent catheterization with Lofric and polyvinyl chloride catheters]. [Article in Spanish] López Pereira P, Martínez Urrutia MJ, Lobato L, Rivas S, Jaureguizar Monereo E. SourceUnidad de Urología Infantil, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid. Abstract PURPOSE: To assess the grade of satisfaction in children on intermittent catheterization with the use of LoFric and PVC conventional catheters. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 40 p with experience in CIC were included in this study. An anonymous questionnaire was sent to all patients after 2-months using the LoFric catheter. Patients were divided in 3 groups (bladder augmentation, artificial sphincter, Mitrofanoff) because of major differences in CIC discomfort between these groups. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 87.5% of the patients (35 p). In 86% (30 p) LoFric catheter training was easy or very easy but in 14% (5 p) it was difficult. Four patients had some difficulty during conventional catheter insertion, in 3 (75%) the difficulty disappeared with the use of LoFric catheter. Of the 51% (18 p) who reported some discomfort during the insertion of conventional catheter, 72% said it was eliminated when the LoFric catheter was used. Of 6 p with some discomfort when removing the conventional catheter, 5 (83%) said it disappeared with the new catheter. Th LoFric catheter was favored by 70% of patients because it reduced the discomfort caused by conventional catheters, bladder insertion was easier and smoother, and gel lubrication was not needed. The 17% of patients reported some difficulty dealing with this slippery catheter. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the LoFric catheter could be justified in patients who report with conventional catheters have some discomfort. It can also be recommended in patients with artificial sphincter, bladder augmentation and Mitrofanoff procedure, in whom any complication related to CIC would have serious consequences.