ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To evaluate changes in quality of life (QoL) in patients with neurogenic bladder treated with clean intermittent catheterization (CIC), who changed from a multiple use catheter (MUC) to single use catheter (SUC). METHODS: The Modified Intermittent Self-Catheterization Questionnaire (mISC-Q) was used to determine potential changes in patients'QoL as a result of switching from MUC to SUC. The mISC-Q consists of questions within four categories: ease of use, convenience, discreetness, and symptomatic benefit. Answers were graded as Strongly agree (+2), Agree (+1), Not sure (0), Disagree (−1), and Strongly disagree (−2). Overall patient QoL, as well as by sex, disease (presence of augmentation cystoplasty), and catheterization route (via urethra or urinary diversion), were analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients (21M:17F; mean age: 21.7±5.3 y) submitted questionnaires. For ease of use, SUC was significantly better than MUC (score: 0.364, P=0.002) in all patients. Patients with catheterization via the urethra showed significant favor for SUC in ease of use (score: 0.512, P<0.001) and convenience (score: 0.714, P=0.011), but patients with catheterization via the abdominal stoma of urinary diversion gave negative scores in all categories, though no categories were significant. CONCLUSION: This study suggested that changing from MUC to SUC may lead to improvements in QoL, especially regarding ease of use. This benefit was clearly found in patients with catheterization via urethra rather than abdominal stoma of urinary diversion.
Subject(s)
Humans , Catheterization , Catheters , Intermittent Urethral Catheterization , Quality of Life , Urethra , Urinary Bladder, Neurogenic , Urinary DiversionABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To evaluate changes in quality of life (QoL) in patients with neurogenic bladder treated with clean intermittent catheterization (CIC), who changed from a multiple use catheter (MUC) to single use catheter (SUC). METHODS: The Modified Intermittent Self-Catheterization Questionnaire (mISC-Q) was used to determine potential changes in patients'QoL as a result of switching from MUC to SUC. The mISC-Q consists of questions within four categories: ease of use, convenience, discreetness, and symptomatic benefit. Answers were graded as Strongly agree (+2), Agree (+1), Not sure (0), Disagree (−1), and Strongly disagree (−2). Overall patient QoL, as well as by sex, disease (presence of augmentation cystoplasty), and catheterization route (via urethra or urinary diversion), were analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients (21M:17F; mean age: 21.7±5.3 y) submitted questionnaires. For ease of use, SUC was significantly better than MUC (score: 0.364, P=0.002) in all patients. Patients with catheterization via the urethra showed significant favor for SUC in ease of use (score: 0.512, P<0.001) and convenience (score: 0.714, P=0.011), but patients with catheterization via the abdominal stoma of urinary diversion gave negative scores in all categories, though no categories were significant. CONCLUSION: This study suggested that changing from MUC to SUC may lead to improvements in QoL, especially regarding ease of use. This benefit was clearly found in patients with catheterization via urethra rather than abdominal stoma of urinary diversion.