Intermittent catheterization is the treatment of choice for individuals with urine retention owing to neurogenic [such as spinal cord injury (SCI), spina bifida (SB), or multiple sclerosis (MS)] or non-neurogenic [such as malignancy, benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH)] reasons. In terms of satisfaction, preference, adverse events, urinary tract infection (UTI), quality of life (QoL), cost-effectiveness, pain, and discomfort, this scoping review compared hydrophilic-coated intermittent catheters (HCICs) with non-hydrophilic (uncoated) catheters in neurogenic and non-neurogenic patients. Researchers studied systematic reviews/meta-analysis and clinical research (randomized trials, cohort, and case-control studies) published in English between 2000 and 2020 using PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Embase, and relevant clinical practice guidelines. With respect to each disease, a narrative synthesis was made contrasting HCIC with non-hydrophilic catheters. The publications were evaluated and weighted based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of the Evidence grading system. In total, there were 37 new pieces of writing and 40 reviews. Patients with various pathologies, including SCI and, to a lesser extent, SB, were studied to determine whether or not HCICs were superior to non-hydrophilic catheters. Investigators have found that HCICs are associated with better results than other interventions, notably in reducing the prevalence of urinary tract infections and in patients’ reports of satisfaction, cost-effectiveness, and quality of life. Unfortunately, studies using SB in children did not find a decrease in UTIs. Children’s concerns about the catheter’s slippery surface suggest that the skin may have touched the catheter during insertion, which might introduce bacteria into the body and increase the risk of complications like urinary tract infections. Few trials focused solely on BPH and none on MS, but those that included both conditions showed a marked preference for HCICs over non-hydrophilic catheters. Although the results typically favor HCICs over non-hydrophilic catheters, many of the studies were small, used a variety of pathologies, and drew their conclusions from research with low participant numbers due to high dropout rates. The general finding that HCICs are the preferred choice in most demographics needs to be supported by larger investigations. There may be a need for specialized training for children or for catheters with different features for kids to reap the benefits of HCICs.

Source: bmcurol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12894-022-01102-8