Comparative study of the degree of patient satisfaction in intermittent catheterization with Lofric and polyvinyl chloride catheters
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2001 |
Outros Autores: | , , , |
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 |
Resumo: | 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. |
id |
RCAP_4b17c41ad40b412e276db3135e9a322f |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.chporto.pt:10400.16/728 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Comparative study of the degree of patient satisfaction in intermittent catheterization with Lofric and polyvinyl chloride cathetersActas 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.Ene Ediciones Sl / Asociación Española de UrologíaRepositório Científico do Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Santo AntónioPereira, P.Urrutia, M.Lobato, L.Rivas, S.Monereo, E.2011-07-06T11:10:32Z2001-112001-11-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.16/728spa0210-4806info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-10-20T10:53:36Zoai:repositorio.chporto.pt:10400.16/728Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T20:37:07.010203Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Comparative study of the degree of patient satisfaction in intermittent catheterization with Lofric and polyvinyl chloride catheters |
title |
Comparative study of the degree of patient satisfaction in intermittent catheterization with Lofric and polyvinyl chloride catheters |
spellingShingle |
Comparative study of the degree of patient satisfaction in intermittent catheterization with Lofric and polyvinyl chloride catheters Pereira, P. |
title_short |
Comparative study of the degree of patient satisfaction in intermittent catheterization with Lofric and polyvinyl chloride catheters |
title_full |
Comparative study of the degree of patient satisfaction in intermittent catheterization with Lofric and polyvinyl chloride catheters |
title_fullStr |
Comparative study of the degree of patient satisfaction in intermittent catheterization with Lofric and polyvinyl chloride catheters |
title_full_unstemmed |
Comparative study of the degree of patient satisfaction in intermittent catheterization with Lofric and polyvinyl chloride catheters |
title_sort |
Comparative study of the degree of patient satisfaction in intermittent catheterization with Lofric and polyvinyl chloride catheters |
author |
Pereira, P. |
author_facet |
Pereira, P. Urrutia, M. Lobato, L. Rivas, S. Monereo, E. |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Urrutia, M. Lobato, L. Rivas, S. Monereo, E. |
author2_role |
author author author author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico do Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Santo António |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Pereira, P. Urrutia, M. Lobato, L. Rivas, S. Monereo, E. |
description |
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. |
publishDate |
2001 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2001-11 2001-11-01T00:00:00Z 2011-07-06T11:10:32Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10400.16/728 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10400.16/728 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
spa |
language |
spa |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
0210-4806 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Ene Ediciones Sl / Asociación Española de Urología |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Ene Ediciones Sl / Asociación Española de Urología |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799133632898531328 |