Hydrophilic-coated catheters for intermittent catheterisation reduce urethral microtrauma: A prospective, randomised, participant-blinded, crossover study of three different types of catheters

Objective: To compare two hydrophilic-coated (SpeediCath((R)) and LoFric((R))) and one uncoated gel-lubricated catheter (InCare((R)) Advance Plus) concerning withdrawal friction force and urethral micro trauma. Methods: 49 healthy male volunteers participated in this prospective, randomised, blinded, crossover study of three different bladder catheters. The withdrawal friction force was measured, and urine analysis of blood, nitrite and leucocytes, microbiological analysis of urine cultures and subjective evaluation of the catheters were performed. Results: 40 participants completed the study and were included in the analysis. SpeediCath((R)) exerted a significantly lower mean withdrawal friction force and work than the gel-lubricated uncoated catheter, whereas LoFric((R)) exerted a significantly higher mean friction force than both of the other catheters. The hydrophilic catheters caused less microscopic haematuria and less pain than the gel-lubricated uncoated catheter. Furthermore, 93% of the participants preferred the hydrophilic catheters. Conclusion: Hydrophilic-coated catheters perform better than uncoated catheters with regard to haematuria and preference. SpeediCath((R)), but not LoFric((R)), exerts less withdrawal friction force than InCare((R)) Advance Plus. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.