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 catheter 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 in the UK at the time. Subjects used each of the four test catheters for 1 week in a random order, and were provided with the number and size of catheter they normally used. To assess the products, the subjects: (i) timed seven catheterizations using a stop-watch to determine the time taken from extracting the catheter from the water-filled package, to removing the catheter from the penis, having emptied the bladder; (ii) recorded the severity of \u91sticking\u92 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 \u91sticking\u92 between the \u91Easicath\u92 and \u91Lofric\u92 (P > 0.05), but there were significant differences between these two products and the \u91Aquacath\u92 and the \u91Silky\u92, which were found to \u91stick\u92 more (P < 0.001). The \u91Silky\u92 was reported to stick significantly more than the \u91Aquacath\u92 (P < 0.001). Conclusions Adherence to the urethral mucosa on catheter removal was a common problem, occurring with all catheters, but two products were significantly more likely to stick than the other two. The clinical importance of \u91sticking\u92 and the long-term implications are currently unknown. The relative \u91sticking\u92 of uncoated catheters has also not been established