Beneficios de la sonda hidrofílica Onli® en la técnica del cateterismo intermitente en pacientes con retención urinaria

  1. Antonio Hernández Martínez
  2. Blanca Fernández-Lasquetty Blanc
  3. María García Poyato
  4. Julián Rodríguez Almagro
Journal:
Metas de enfermería

ISSN: 1138-7262

Year of publication: 2019

Volume: 22

Issue: 1

Pages: 24-32

Type: Article

DOI: 10.35667/METASENF.2019.22.1003081351 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

More publications in: Metas de enfermería

Abstract

Objective: to understand the level of acceptance for the Onli® intermittent vesical probe through the assessment of patients and professionals in urodynamic practices and units, in terms of its ease of use and the importance assigned to its technical characteristics. Method: a multicenter prospective observational study on the use and benefits offered by the Onli® hydrophilic probe with steam technology in patients with vesical dysfunction, when the treatment of choice is intermittent vesical probing and the assessment by the Nursing professionals managing said patients. A self-prepared Likert-type questionnaire was used, including 27 items (20 for patients and 7 for professionals). Results: the study was conducted on the assessment by 137 patients and 29 Nursing professionals from urodynamic units in 23 Spanish hospitals. Of these professionals and patients, 84-92% considered easy or very easy to use the Onli® probe (insertion, progression and removal), and 89-97% the availability, design and management of the guide-wire in the male probe and the design of the female probe, which allow the “non-touch” technique. Based on their experience, 97.1% of professionals considered that they would be likely or very likely to recommend this type of probe. Conclusions: the assessment of the Onli® probe by professionals and patients has shown a very good acceptance, both for its design and the specific and unique characteristics of this type of probe, and for its ease of use and allowing the “non-touch” technique.

Bibliographic References

  • Panicker J, Seth J, Haslam C. Ensuring patient adherence to clean intermittent self-catheterization. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014 Feb; 8:191.
  • Pilloni S, Krhut J, Mair D, Madersbacher H, Kessler TM. Intermittent catheterisation in older people: a valuable alternative to an indwelling catheter? Age Ageing. 2005 Jan; 34(1):57-60.
  • Larsen LD, Chamberlin DA, Khonsari F, Ahlering TE. Retrospective analysis of urologic complications in male patients with spinal cord injury managed with and without indwelling urinary catheters. Urology. 1997 Sep; 50(3):418-22.
  • Lo E, Nicolle LE, Coffin SE, Gould C, Maragakis LL, Meddings J, et al. Strategies to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections in acute care hospitals: 2014 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014 May; 35(5):464-79.
  • Hagen EM, Rekand T. Management of bladder dysfunction and satisfaction of life after spinal cord injury in Norway. J Spinal Cord Med. 2014 May; 37(3):310-6.
  • Adriaansen JJE, van Asbeck FWA, Tepper M, Faber WX, Visser-Meily JMA, de Kort LMO, et al. Bladder-emptying methods, neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction and impact on quality of life in people with long-term spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med. 2017; 40(1):43-53.
  • Schurch B, Tawadros C, Carda S. Dysfunction of lower urinary tract in patients with spinal cord injury. In: Handbook of clinical neurology. 2015. p. 247-67.
  • Yıldız N, Akkoç Y, Erhan B, Gündüz B, Yılmaz B, Alaca R, et al. Neurogenic bladder in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury: treatment and follow-up. Spinal Cord. 2014 Jun; 52(6):462-7.
  • De Ridder DJMK, Everaert K, Fernández LG, Valero JVF, Durán AB, Abrisqueta MLJ, 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. Eur Urol. 2005 Dec; 48(6):991-5.
  • Hudson E, Murahata RI. The ‘no-touch’ method of intermittent urinary catheter insertion: can it reduce the risk of bacteria entering the bladder? Spinal Cord. 2005 Oct; 43(10):611-4.
  • Vahr S, Cobussen-Boekhorst H, Eikenboom J, Geng V, Holroyd S, Lester M, et al. Evidence-based Guidelines for Best Practice in Urological Health Care Catheterisation Urethral intermittent in adults Dilatation, urethral intermittent in adults [internet]. Uroweb 2013 [cited 13 dec 2018]. Available from: https://www.uroweb.org/publications/eaun-good-
  • Håkansson MÅ. Reuse versus single-use catheters for intermittent catheterization: what is safe and preferred? Review of current status. Spinal Cord [internet]. 2014 Jul 27 [cited 13 dec 2018]; 52(7):511-6. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24861702
  • Rainville NC. The current nursing procedure for intermittent urinary catheterization in rehabilitation facilities. Rehabil Nurs. 1994 Nov-Dec; 19(6):330-3.
  • Tunney MM, Gorman SP. Evaluation of a poly (vinyl pyrollidone)-coated biomaterial for urological use. Biomaterials. 2002 Dec; 23(23):4601-8.
  • Hedlund H, Hjelmås K, Jonsson O, Klarskov P, Talja M. Hydrophilic versus non-coated catheters for intermittent catheterization. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2001 Feb; 35(1):49-53.
  • Stensballe J, Looms D, Nielsen PN, Tvede M. Hydrophilic-coated catheters for intermittent catheterisation reduce urethral micro trauma: a prospective, randomised, participant-blinded, crossover study of three different types of catheters. Eur Urol. 2005 Dec; 48(6):978-83.
  • Bermingham SL, Hodgkinson S, Wright S, Hayter E, Spinks J, Pellowe C. Intermittent self catheterisation with hydrophilic, gel reservoir, and non-coated catheters: a systematic review and cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ. 2013 Jan; 346:e8639.
  • McClurg D, Walker K, Pickard R, Hilton P, Ainsworth H, Leonard K, et al. Participant experiences of clean intermittent self-catheterisation, urinary tract infections and antibiotic use on the ANTIC trial-A qualitative study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018 May; 81:1-7.
  • Van Achterberg T, Holleman G, Cobussen-Boekhorst H, Arts R, Heesakkers J. Adherence to clean intermittent self-catheterization procedures: determinants explored. J Clin Nurs. 2008 Feb; 17(3):394-402.
  • Logan K, Shaw C, Webber I, Samuel S, Broome L. Patients’ experiences of learning clean intermittent self-catheterization: a qualitative study. J Adv Nurs. 2008 Apr; 62(1):32-40.
  • Krassioukov A, Cragg JJ, West C, Voss C, Krassioukov-Enns D. The good, the bad and the ugly of catheterization practices among elite athletes with spinal cord injury: a global perspective. Spinal Cord. 2015 Jan; 53(1):78-82.
  • Rognoni C, Tarricone R. Healthcare resource consumption for intermittent urinary catheterisation: cost-effectiveness of hydrophilic catheters and budget impact analyses. BMJ Open. 2017; 7:e012360. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012360.
  • Truzzi JC, Teich V, Pepe C. Can hydrophilic coated catheters be beneficial for the public healthcare system in Brazil? A cost-effectiveness analysis in patients with spinal cord injuries. Int Braz J Urol. 2018; 44(1):121-31.
  • Vapnek JM, Maynard FM, Kim J. A prospective randomized trial of the lofric hydrophilic coated catheter versus conventional plastic catheter for clean intermittent catheterization. J Urol. 2003 Mar; 169(3):994-8.
  • Shamout S, Biardeau X, Corcos J, Campeau L. Outcome comparison of different approaches to self-intermittent catheterization in neurogenic patients: a systematic review. Spinal Cord. 2017 Jul; 55(7):629-43.
  • Türk Börü Ü, Duman A, Kulualp A, Güler N, Tademir M, Yılmaz Ü, et al. Multiple sclerosis prevalence study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Oct; 97(42):e12856.
  • Instituto Nacional de Estadística. Proyecciones de población 2016-2066. Madrid: INE; 2018.
Data source: Dialnet