首页> 外文OA文献 >Comparative study of the degree of patient satisfaction in intermittent catheterization with Lofric and polyvinyl chloride catheters
【2h】

Comparative study of the degree of patient satisfaction in intermittent catheterization with Lofric and polyvinyl chloride catheters

机译:Lofric和聚氯乙烯导管间歇性插管患者满意度的比较研究

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Actas Urol Esp. 2001 Nov-Dec;25(10):725-30.[Comparative study of the degree of patient satisfaction in intermittent catheterization with Lofric and polyvinyl chloride catheters].[Article in Spanish]López Pereira P, Martínez Urrutia MJ, Lobato L, Rivas S, Jaureguizar Monereo E.SourceUnidad de Urología Infantil, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid.AbstractPURPOSE: To assess the grade of satisfaction in children on intermittent catheterization with the use of LoFric and PVC conventional catheters.MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 40 p with experience in CIC were included in this study. An anonymous questionnaire was sent to all patients after 2-months using the LoFric catheter. Patients were divided in 3 groups (bladder augmentation, artificial sphincter, Mitrofanoff) because of major differences in CIC discomfort between these groups.RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 87.5% of the patients (35 p). In 86% (30 p) LoFric catheter training was easy or very easy but in 14% (5 p) it was difficult. Four patients had some difficulty during conventional catheter insertion, in 3 (75%) the difficulty disappeared with the use of LoFric catheter. Of the 51% (18 p) who reported some discomfort during the insertion of conventional catheter, 72% said it was eliminated when the LoFric catheter was used. Of 6 p with some discomfort when removing the conventional catheter, 5 (83%) said it disappeared with the new catheter. Th LoFric catheter was favored by 70% of patients because it reduced the discomfort caused by conventional catheters, bladder insertion was easier and smoother, and gel lubrication was not needed. The 17% of patients reported some difficulty dealing with this slippery catheter.CONCLUSIONS: The use of the LoFric catheter could be justified in patients who report with conventional catheters have some discomfort. It can also be recommended in patients with artificial sphincter, bladder augmentation and Mitrofanoff procedure, in whom any complication related to CIC would have serious consequences.
机译:Actas Urol Esp。 2001 Nov-Dec; 25(10):725-30。[使用Lofric和聚氯乙烯导管进行间歇性插管的患者满意度比较研究]。[西班牙语]LópezPereira P,MartínezUrrutia MJ,Lobato L,目的:评估使用LoFric和PVC常规导管对间歇性导管插入术的儿童的满意程度。材料与方法:总共40篇论文,作者:Rivas S,Jaureguizar Monereo E.具有CIC经验的p纳入本研究。两个月后,使用LoFric导管向所有患者发送了匿名问卷。由于这些组之间CIC不适的主要差异,将患​​者分为3组(膀胱增大,人工括约肌,Mitrofanoff)。结果:问卷调查完成了87.5%的患者(35 p)。在LoFric导管中,有86%(30 p)的训练很容易或非常容易,但有14%(5 p)的人则很难。 4例患者在常规导管插入过程中遇到了一些困难,其中3例(75%)通过使用LoFric导管消失了。在51%(18 p)的患者中,在常规导管插入过程中出现不适感,其中72%的人说,使用LoFric导管后,这种症状已消除。在拔下常规导管时出现不适感的6 p中,有5(83%)表示新导管消失了。 LoFric导管受到70%的患者青睐,因为它减少了常规导管引起的不适,膀胱插入更容易,更顺畅,并且不需要凝胶润滑。 17%的患者报告了使用该滑导管的困难。结论:LoFric导管的使用可以证明常规导管存在不适的患者是合理的。对于人工括约肌,膀胱增大和Mitrofanoff手术的患者,也可能推荐使用这种方法,其中任何与CIC相关的并发症都会造成严重后果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号