Childhood Kidney Diseases

Korean Society of Pediatric Nephrology (대한소아신장학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects on Quality of Life in Patients with Neurogenic Bladder treated with Clean Intermittent Catheterization: Change from Multiple Use Catheter to Single Use Catheter

  • Park, Chu Hong (Department of Urology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Jang, Gwan (Department of Urology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Seon, Dong Young (Department of Urology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Sun, In Young (Department of Urology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Ahn, Chi Hyun (Department of Urology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Ryu, Ho-young (Department of Urology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Sang Heon (Department of Urology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Kwang Myeong (Department of Urology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2017.02.13
  • Accepted : 2017.09.27
  • Published : 2017.10.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

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: $21.7{\pm}5.3y$) 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.

Keywords

References

  1. Lapides J, Diokno AC, Silber SJ, Lowe BS. Clean intermittent selfcatheterization in the treatment of urinary tract disease. J Urol 1972;107:458-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)61055-3
  2. Hellstrom P, Tammela T, Lukkarinen O, Kontturi M. Efficacy and safety of clean intermittent catheterization in adults. Eur Urol 1991;20:117-21. https://doi.org/10.1159/000471678
  3. Kanaheswari Y, Kavitha R, Rizal AMM. Urinary tract infection and bacteriuria in children performing clean intermittent catheterization with reused catheters. Spinal Cord 2015;53:209-12. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2014.210
  4. Schlager TA, Clark M, Anderson S. Effect of a single-use sterile catheter for each void on the frequency of bacteriuria in children with neurogenic bladder on intermittent catheterization for bladder emptying. Pediatrics 2001;108:1-4. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.108.1.1
  5. Morris LS, Schulz RM. Medication compliance: the patient's perspective. Clin Ther 1993;15:593-606.
  6. Everaert K, Lumen N, Kerckhaert W, Willaert P, van Driel M. Urinary tract infections in spinal cord injury: prevention and treatment guidelines. Acta Clin Belg 2009;64:335-40. https://doi.org/10.1179/acb.2009.052
  7. Dorsher PT, McIntosh PM. Neurogenic bladder. Adv Urol 2012.
  8. Wyndaele JJ. Complications of intermittent catheterization: their prevention and treatment. Spinal Cord 2002;40:536-41 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.sc.3101348
  9. Diokno AC, Mitchell BA, Nash AJ, Kimbrough JA. Patient satisfaction and the LoFric catheter for clean intermittent catheterization. J Urol 1995;153:349-51. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005392-199502000-00015
  10. Pinder B, Lloyd AJ, Elwick H, Denys P, Marley J, Bonniaud V. Deve lopment and psychometric validation of the intermittent selfcatheterization questionnaire. Clin Ther 2012;34:2302-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2012.10.006
  11. Guinet-Lacoste A, Jousse M, Tan E, Caillebot M, Le Breton F, Amarenco G. Intermittent catheterization difficulty questionnaire (ICDQ): A new tool for the evaluation of patient difficulties with clean intermittent self-catheterization. Neurourol Urodyn 2016;35:85-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22686
  12. Elder JS, Snyder HM, Hulbert WC, Duckett JW. Perforation of the augmented bladder in patients undergoing clean intermittent catheterization. J Urol 1988;140:1159-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)41988-4
  13. Joseph DB, Bauer SB, Colodny AH, Mandell J, Retik AB. Clean, intermittent catheterization of infants with neurogenic bladder. Pediatrics 1989;84:78-82.