Frezieres R G, Walsh T L, Nelson A L, Clark V A, Coulson A H
California Family Health Council, Los Angeles, USA.
Fam Plann Perspect. 1998 Mar-Apr;30(2):73-8.
Although the first commercial polyurethane condom was approved for use several years ago, no U.S. clinical trial has compared its performance to that of the latex condom.
In a masked crossover study, 360 couples were randomized to use three polyurethane condoms and three latex condoms. After each use, couples recorded condom breaks, condom slips and other aspects of performance. At completion of the study, couples compared the sensitivity, ease of use, fit and lubrication of the two types of condoms.
The clinical breakage rate of the polyurethane condom was 7.2%, compared with 1.1% for the latex condom (relative risk of 6.6, 95% confidence interval of 3.5-12.3). The complete slippage rate (combining incidents during intercourse and withdrawal) of the polyurethane condom was 3.6%, compared with 0.6% for the latex condom (relative risk of 6.0, 95% confidence interval of 2.6-14.2). Most male users preferred the sensitivity provided by the polyurethane condom to that of the latex condom.
The clinical breakage rate of the polyurethane condom is significantly higher than that of the latex condom. However, nearly half of the users preferred the polyurethane condom, which provides an option for couples who have rejected conventional condoms or who cannot use latex products.
尽管首款商用聚氨酯避孕套在几年前就已获批使用,但美国尚无临床试验将其性能与乳胶避孕套进行比较。
在一项双盲交叉研究中,360对夫妇被随机分配使用三种聚氨酯避孕套和三种乳胶避孕套。每次使用后,夫妇双方记录避孕套破裂、滑脱及其他性能方面的情况。研究结束时,夫妇双方比较了两种避孕套的敏感度、易用性、贴合度和润滑度。
聚氨酯避孕套的临床破损率为7.2%,而乳胶避孕套为1.1%(相对风险为6.6,95%置信区间为3.5 - 12.3)。聚氨酯避孕套的完全滑脱率(包括性交过程中和抽出时的情况)为3.6%,而乳胶避孕套为0.6%(相对风险为6.0,95%置信区间为2.6 - 14.2)。大多数男性使用者更喜欢聚氨酯避孕套提供的敏感度,而非乳胶避孕套的。
聚氨酯避孕套的临床破损率显著高于乳胶避孕套。然而,近一半的使用者更喜欢聚氨酯避孕套,这为那些拒绝使用传统避孕套或无法使用乳胶产品的夫妇提供了一种选择。