Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 4, 2026
Transcorporal Artificial Urinary Sphincter Cuff Placement in a Case Requiring Revision for Urethral Atrophy
Published on: June 16, 2022
Complications and patient satisfaction with urethral clean intermittent catheterization in spina bifida patients:
Tariq Burki1, Abdelazim Abasher1, Ahlam Alshahrani1
1Pediatric Urology Division, King Abdullah Specialized Children Hospital, King Abdul Aziz Medical City, National Guard Health Affair, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Insights
Clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) in children with spina bifida showed no significant difference in complications between hydrophilic-coated catheters (HCC) and uncoated catheters (UCC). Patients preferred HCC for ease of use, despite higher costs.
Area of Science:
- Urology
- Pediatric Nephrology
- Medical Devices
Background:
- Clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) is a common procedure for managing bladder emptying in children with spina bifida.
- Numerous catheter types exist, with manufacturers claiming product superiority, yet robust evidence is often lacking.
- Assessing catheter-related complications and patient experience is crucial for optimizing care.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate complications associated with CIC in spina bifida patients.
- To determine if hydrophilic-coated catheters (HCC) or uncoated catheters (UCC) impact complication rates.
- To improve patient experience and compliance with CIC.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective review of 101 spina bifida patients (0-16 years) undergoing CIC for at least 6 months.
- Patients were categorized into UCC and HCC groups, with some crossover between groups.
- Data collected included catheter type/size, duration, complications, patient satisfaction, and catheter preference.
Main Results:
- No significant differences in complication rates (e.g., UTIs) were observed between UCC and HCC groups.
- Patient satisfaction was high in both groups, with a trend towards higher satisfaction with HCC.
- A majority of patients preferred HCC for convenience, despite a significantly higher cost (US$2820 vs. US$389 per year).
Conclusions:
- Urethral CIC in pediatric spina bifida patients shows no significant difference in complication rates between UCC and HCC.
- Patient preference for HCC is driven by convenience, highlighting the importance of user experience in device selection.
- While cost is a factor, patient preference suggests a potential value in HCC for improving adherence and quality of life.
Introduction:
Many types of catheters are available in market for clean intermittent catheterization (CIC). Each company claim superiority of their products, but strong evidence is lacking.
Purpose:
To assess the complications due to CIC in spina bifida children and its possible relationship to hydrophilic-coated catheter (HCC) or uncoated catheters (UCCs), with a view to decrease catheter related complications, and improve patients experience and compliance.
Materials And Methods:
The authors retrospectively reviewed the spina bifida patients aged between 0 and 16 years, who had no surgical intervention, and were performing CIC urethrally for at least 6 months. General information was recorded from electronic patient record, followed by telephonic/outpatient interview. Patients were divided into two groups: UCC or HCC. Patients in both groups had also used catheter from the other group at times. This study recorded the type/size of catheter used, its duration, complications, and their possible relation to type of catheter. Carer/patients overall satisfaction was recorded on a scale of 1-10 and their preference about the type of catheter they wish. The data were analyzed using SPSS (P-value < 0.05 as significant).
Results:
One hundred one patients were included in the study: 53 UCC and 48 HCC. There was no significant difference between gender/associated conditions/age at start of CIC or duration of CIC. The mean time taken to perform the procedure was similar in both groups: UCC 9.7 min vs HCC 8.8 min. Difficulty in insertion was felt in 20, UCC 12 vs HCC 8 (P = 0.15), recurrent UTIs UCC 12 vs HCC 17 (P = 0.09), median patient satisfaction UCC 8/10 (3-10) and HCC 10/10 (7-10) (P = 0.63). Request for change of catheter was made by 10 from UCC group to HCC vs none from HCC (P ≤ 0.05).When given a choice, 28/53 (52.8%) in UCC and none (0%) in HCC group (P ≤ 0.0001) preferred to change to the other type of catheter, mainly for convenience of use of the product. Per year per patient cost was UCC US$ 389 vs HCC US$ 2820.
Discussion:
Many un-modifiable factors contribute to the outcome of CIC. Despite claims of superiority by manufactures of some catheters over others, strong evidence is lacking especially in children. This study has shown no difference in the complications between UCC and HCC.
Conclusion:
There is no significant difference in complication rates with urethral CIC in patients using either UCC or HCC. A significant majority would prefer to use HCC mainly because of convenience of use of the product though at a seven times higher cost.
Related Concept Videos
01:26Cardiac Catheterization IV: Nursing Management
01:28Cardiac Catheterization I: Pre-Procedure Overview
01:25Peritoneal Dialysis II: Peritoneal Dialysis Systems and Complications
01:29Suctioning the Nasopharyngeal Airway
Equipment Required
01:28Urologic Endoscopic Procedure: Cystoscopic Examination
01:29Endocarditis IV: Nursing Management