Abdelrahman Mamoun, Davis Niall F, McMahon Barry P, Walsh Michael, McDermott Thomas E D, Thornhill John A, Manecksha Rustom P
Department of Urology, Tallaght Hospital, Tallaght, Dublin, Ireland.
Centre for Applied Biomedical Engineering Research, Materials and Surface Science Institute, University of Limerick, Castletroy, Co Limerick, Ireland.
Cent European J Urol. 2017;70(4):382-387. doi: 10.5173/ceju.2017.1494. Epub 2017 Oct 3.
We aimed to investigate irrigation and drainage characteristics of commercially available urethral catheters and determined which catheter offers the best flow characteristics.
Twelve different commercially available urethral catheters from three companies (Bard™, Rusch™ and Dover™) were investigated to compare their irrigation and drainage properties. Irrigation port, drainage port and overall cross-sectional areas for a 24Fr 3-way catheter was measured and compared. The maximum (Qmax) and average (Qavg) irrigation and drainage flow rates for each catheter was measured for 20-40 seconds using uroflowmetry. The primary endpoint was to determine which catheter offers optimal irrigation and drainage parameters.
Overall cross-sectional area, irrigation port cross-sectional area, and drainage port cross-sectional area differed significantly for each 24Fr 3-way catheter assessed (p <0.001). The 24Fr 3-way Rusch Simplastic™ catheter consistently demonstrated the greatest maximal flow rate (Qmax: 5 ±0.3 ml/s) and average flow rate (Qavg: 4.6 ±0.2 ml/s) for irrigation. The 24Fr 3-way Dover™ catheter provided the greatest drainage properties (Qmax: 19.7 ±2 ml/s; Q avg: 15.9 ±5 ml/s). In the setting of continuous bladder irrigation, the 24Fr 3-way Rusch Simplastic™ catheter provided the highest irrigation rates (Qmax: 6.6 ±1.8 ml/s; Q avg: 4.6 ±0.9 ml/s).
Three-way catheters demonstrate significant differences in their irrigation and drainage characteristics. The type of catheter selected should be based on the appropriate prioritization of efficient bladder irrigation versus efficient bladder drainage.
我们旨在研究市售尿道导管的冲洗和引流特性,并确定哪种导管具有最佳的流量特性。
对来自三家公司(巴德™、鲁施™和多佛™)的12种不同市售尿道导管进行研究,以比较它们的冲洗和引流特性。测量并比较了24Fr三腔导管的冲洗端口、引流端口和整体横截面积。使用尿流计在20至40秒内测量每种导管的最大(Qmax)和平均(Qavg)冲洗及引流流速。主要终点是确定哪种导管提供最佳的冲洗和引流参数。
在所评估的每种24Fr三腔导管中,整体横截面积、冲洗端口横截面积和引流端口横截面积存在显著差异(p<0.001)。24Fr三腔鲁施辛普拉斯™导管在冲洗时始终显示出最大的最大流速(Qmax:5±0.3毫升/秒)和平均流速(Qavg:4.6±0.2毫升/秒)。24Fr三腔多佛™导管具有最佳的引流特性(Qmax:19.7±2毫升/秒;Qavg:15.9±5毫升/秒)。在持续膀胱冲洗的情况下,24Fr三腔鲁施辛普拉斯™导管提供了最高的冲洗速率(Qmax:6.6±1.8毫升/秒;Qavg:4.6±0.9毫升/秒)。
三腔导管在冲洗和引流特性方面存在显著差异。应根据有效膀胱冲洗与有效膀胱引流的适当优先级来选择导管类型。