Surface and coating of the catheter
Considering the chemical and physical properties of the catheter surface is important to limit the risk of trauma.
Catheters with hydrophilic coatings cause significantly less urethral trauma, less removal friction, and less pain, compared to gel lubrication.1
Osmolality features
Did you know that the osmolality of hydrophilic catheters reduces the removal friction and the risk of urethral trauma (haematuria) during catheterisation?2
Risks associated with catheterisation
Difficult and traumatic catheterisations may cause injuries ranging from a mucosal tear to more serious false passages, which are associated with UTIs, and strictures, and may require surgical management.3
What does the clinical evidence say?
Several trials and reviews have been conducted about the pros and cons of different catheter types.4
There is no unanimous answer to which catheter type is better for neurological patients,4 but several recent studies have found that hydrophilic catheters significantly lower the risk of UTI compared to non-hydrophilic catheters.5-8
- Stensballe J, Looms D, Nielsen P N et al. Hydrophilic-coated catheters for intermittent catheterisation reduce urethral micro trauma: a prospective, randomised, participant-blinded, crossover study of three different types of catheters. European Urology. 2005;48(6): 978–983
- J. Lundgren J, O. Bengtsson O, A. Israelsson A et al., The importance of osmolality for intermittent catheterization of the urethra. Spinal Cord. 2000;38(1):45–50
- Willette P A and Coffield S, Current trends in the management of difficult urinary catheterizations. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2012;13(6):427–478
- Kennelly M, Thiruchelvam N, Averbeck MA et al., Adult neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction and intermittent catheterisation in a community setting: Risk factors model for urinary tract infections. Advances in Urology. 2019;Apr 2:1–13
- De Ridder D J M K, Everaert K, Fernandez L G et al., Intermittent catheterisation with hydrophilic-coated catheters (SpeediCath) reduces the risk of clinical urinary tract infection in spinal cord injured patients: a prospective randomised parallel comparative trial. European Urology. 2005;48(6):991–995
- Cardenas D D, Hoffman J M, and Hoffman, Hydrophilic catheters versus noncoated catheters for reducing the incidence of urinary tract infections: a randomized controlled trial. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2009;90(10):1668–1671
- Rognoni C and R. Tarricone R, Intermittent catheterisation with hydrophilic and non-hydrophilic urinary catheters: systematic literature review and meta-analyses. BMC Urology. 2017;17(1): 4
- Kiddoo D, Sawatzky B, Bascu C D et al., Randomized crossover trial of single use hydrophilic coated vs multiple use polyvinylchloride catheters for intermittent catheterization to determine incidence of urinary infection. Journal of Urology. 2015;194(1):174–179