Department of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Division of Urology, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, CA, USA.
BJU Int. 2024 Jun;133(6):638-645. doi: 10.1111/bju.16313. Epub 2024 Mar 4.
To explore the data comparing single- vs multi-use catheters for clean intermittent catheterisation (CIC), consider if the widespread use of single-use catheters is warranted given the cost and environmental impact, and put forth ideas for future consideration.
A primary literature review was performed in PubMed over the past 50 years. Studies that performed comparative analysis of single- and multi-use catheters were included in our review. All studies that reported on primary data were narratively summarised.
A total of 11 studies were identified that reported on primary data comparing single- and multi-use catheters. There was no appreciable evidence suggesting reusable multi-use catheters were inferior to single-use catheters from an infection or usability standpoint. In addition, the environmental and monetary burden of single-use catheters is significant.
The intermittent catheter landscape in the USA has a complex past: defined by policy, shaped by industry, yet characterised by a paucity of data demonstrating superiority of single-use over multi-use catheters. We believe that the aversion to reusable catheters by many patients and healthcare professionals is unwarranted, especially given the cost and environmental impact. Moving forward, better comparative data and more sustainable practices are needed.
探讨清洁间歇性导尿(CIC)中单用与复用导尿管比较的数据,考虑在成本和环境影响的情况下,广泛使用一次性导尿管是否合理,并提出未来需要考虑的想法。
在过去 50 年中,我们在 PubMed 上进行了主要文献回顾。我们的综述纳入了对单用途和多用途导尿管进行比较分析的研究。所有报告原始数据的研究均进行了叙述性总结。
共确定了 11 项报告了比较单用途和多用途导尿管的原始数据的研究。从感染或可用性的角度来看,没有明显的证据表明可重复使用的多用途导尿管不如一次性导尿管。此外,一次性导尿管在环境和经济方面的负担是巨大的。
美国间歇性导尿的历史很复杂:由政策定义,由行业塑造,但缺乏数据表明一次性导尿管优于多用途导尿管。我们认为,许多患者和医疗保健专业人员对可重复使用导尿管的抵触是没有道理的,尤其是考虑到成本和环境影响。展望未来,需要更好的比较数据和更可持续的实践。