Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Urinary Catheters and Other Devices

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Bladder Dysfunction in the Adult

Part of the book series: Current Clinical Urology ((CCU))

  • 987 Accesses

Abstract

Catheters are used to drain urine from the bladder. They can be used in people with bladder outlet obstruction, urinary incontinence and neurological disease. They may be used intermittently or left in place (indwelling). For indwelling catheters, the route of access may be urethral or suprapubic. Specific adaptations include the material from which the catheter is made, the number of channels, the coatings applied, the shape of the end and the mechanism by which the catheter is retained in place. Catheter use carries risk of complications, such as blockage, infection, stone formation, urethral damage and impaired quality of life. Alternatives to urinary catheters include urinals, pads, sheaths and occlusion devices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Kohler-Ockmore J, Feneley RC. Long-term catheterization of the bladder: prevalence and morbidity. Br J Urol. 1996;77(3):347–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sorbye LW, et al. Indwelling catheter use in home care: elderly, aged 65+, in 11 different countries in Europe. Age Ageing. 2005;34(4):377–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mevcha A, Drake MJ. Etiology and management of urinary retention in women. Indian J Urol. 2010;26(2): 230–5.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Klarskov P, et al. Acute urinary retention in women: a prospective study of 18 consecutive cases. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1987;21(1):29–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. McConnell JD, et al. The effect of finasteride on the risk of acute urinary retention and the need for surgical treatment among men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Finasteride Long-Term Efficacy and Safety Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1998;338(9): 557–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fonda D, Abrams P. Cure sometimes, help always—a “continence paradigm” for all ages and conditions. Neurourol Urodyn. 2006;25(3):290–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Paterson J. Stigma associated with postprostatectomy urinary incontinence. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2000;27(3):168–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Drake MJ, et al. Prospective evaluation of urological effects of aging in chronic spinal cord injury by method of bladder management. Neurourol Urodyn. 2005;24(2):111–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Warren JW. Catheter-associated bacteriuria. Clin Geriatr Med. 1992;8(4):805–19.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sheriff MK, et al. Long-term suprapubic catheterisation: clinical outcome and satisfaction survey. Spinal Cord. 1998;36(3):171–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Esclarin De Ruz A, Garcia Leoni E, Herruzo Cabrera R. Epidemiology and risk factors for urinary tract infection in patients with spinal cord injury. J Urol. 2000;164(4):1285–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Atkinson K. Incorporating sexual health into catheter care. Prof Nurse. 1997;13(3):146–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Khan A, Abrams P. Suprapubic catheter insertion is an outpatient procedure: cost savings resultant on closing an audit loop. BJU Int. 2009;103(5):640–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Noller KL, Pratt JH, Symmonds RE. Bowel perforation with suprapubic cystostomy report of two cases. Obstet Gynecol. 1976;48(1 Suppl):67S–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Aguilera PA, Choi T, Durham BA. Ultrasound-guided suprapubic cystostomy catheter placement in the emergency department. J Emerg Med. 2004;26(3): 319–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lee MJ, et al. Fluoroscopically guided percutaneous suprapubic cystostomy for long-term bladder drainage: an alternative to surgical cystostomy. Radiology. 1993;188(3):787–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Guttmann L, Frankel H. The value of intermittent catheterisation in the early management of traumatic paraplegia and tetraplegia. Paraplegia. 1966;4(2):63–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lapides J, et al. Clean, intermittent self-catheterization in the treatment of urinary tract disease. J Urol. 1972;107(3):458–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Patel MI, Watts W, Grant A. The optimal form of urinary drainage after acute retention of urine. BJU Int. 2001;88(1):26–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Smith NK, Morrant JD. Post-operative urinary retention in women: management by intermittent catheterization. Age Ageing. 1990;19(5):337–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Abrams P, et al. A proposed guideline for the urological management of patients with spinal cord injury. BJU Int. 2008;101(8):989–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Harriss DR, et al. Long-term results of intermittent low-friction self-catheterization in patients with recurrent urethral strictures. Br J Urol. 1994;74(6): 790–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hill VB, Davies WE. A swing to intermittent clean self-catheterisation as a preferred mode of management of the neuropathic bladder for the dextrous spinal cord patient. Paraplegia. 1988;26(6):405–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Oakeshott P, Hunt GM. Intermittent self catheterization for patients with urinary incontinence or difficulty emptying the bladder. Br J Gen Pract. 1992; 42(359):253–5.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Robinson RO, Cockram M, Strode M. Severe handicap in spina bifida: no bar to intermittent self catheterisation. Arch Dis Child. 1985;60(8):760–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lapides J, et al. Further observations on self-catheterization. J Urol. 1976;116(2):169–71.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kunin CM, et al. The association between the use of urinary catheters and morbidity and mortality among elderly patients in nursing homes. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;135(3):291–301.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Pfisterer MH, et al. Geriatric patients’ preferences for treatment of urinary incontinence: a study of hospitalized, cognitively competent adults aged 80 and older. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55(12):2016–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kunin CM, Chin QF, Chambers S. Formation of encrustations on indwelling urinary catheters in the elderly: a comparison of different types of catheter materials in “blockers” and “nonblockers”. J Urol. 1987;138(4):899–902.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Getliffe KA. The use of bladder wash-outs to reduce urinary catheter encrustation. Br J Urol. 1994;73(6): 696–700.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Getliffe K. Managing recurrent urinary catheter blockage: problems, promises, and practicalities. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2003;30(3):146–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Choong SK, et al. The physicochemical basis of urinary catheter encrustation. BJU Int. 1999;83(7):770–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cox AJ, et al. Calcium phosphate in catheter encrustation. Br J Urol. 1987;59(2):159–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Stickler DJ, Zimakoff J. Complications of urinary tract infections associated with devices used for long-term bladder management. J Hosp Infect. 1994;28(3):177–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Stickler DJ, Morgan SD. Modulation of crystalline Proteus mirabilis biofilm development on urinary catheters. J Med Microbiol. 2006;55(Pt 5):489–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Edwards JR, et al. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Report, data summary for 2006, issued June 2007. Am J Infect Control. 2007;35(5):290–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mulhall AB, Chapman RG, Crow RA. Bacteriuria during indwelling urethral catheterization. J Hosp Infect. 1988;11(3):253–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Stamm WE. Catheter-associated urinary tract infections: epidemiology, pathogenesis, and prevention. Am J Med. 1991;91(3B):65S–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Nicolle LE. The chronic indwelling catheter and urinary infection in long-term-care facility residents. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2001;22(5):316–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Maki DG, Tambyah PA. Engineering out the risk for infection with urinary catheters. Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7(2):342–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Trautner BW, Darouiche RO. Role of biofilm in catheter-associated urinary tract infection. Am J Infect Control. 2004;32(3):177–83.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Nickel JC, et al. Bacterial biofilms: influence on the pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment of urinary tract infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1994;33(Suppl A): 31–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Branagan GW, Moran BJ. Published evidence favors the use of suprapubic catheters in pelvic colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45(8):1104–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Schumm K, Lam TB. Types of urethral catheters for management of short-term voiding problems in hospitalised adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;2, CD004013.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Pickard R, Lam T, Maclennan G, et al. Antimicrobial catheters for reduction of symptomatic urinary tract infection in adults requiring short-term catheterisation in hospital: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012;380(9857):1927–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Khan AA, et al. Developing a strategy to reduce the high morbidity of patients with long-term urinary catheters: the BioMed catheter research clinic. BJU Int. 2007;100(6):1298–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ord J, Lunn D, Reynard J. Bladder management and risk of bladder stone formation in spinal cord injured patients. J Urol. 2003;170(5):1734–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Linsenmeyer MA, Linsenmeyer TA. Accuracy of bladder stone detection using abdominal x-ray after spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med. 2004;27(5):438–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Hedelin H, et al. Relationship between urease-producing bacteria, urinary pH and encrustation on indwelling urinary catheters. Br J Urol. 1991;67(5):527–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Morris NS, Stickler DJ, McLean RJ. The development of bacterial biofilms on indwelling urethral catheters. World J Urol. 1999;17(6):345–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Norberg B, Norberg A, Parkhede U. The spontaneous variation of catheter life in long-stay geriatric in patients with indwelling catheters. Gerontology. 1983;29(5):332–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Stickler D, et al. Proteus mirabilis biofilms and the encrustation of urethral catheters. Urol Res. 1993;21(6):407–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Esrig D, McEvoy K, Bennett CJ. Bladder cancer in the spinal cord-injured patient with long-term catheterization: a casual relationship? Semin Urol. 1992;10(2):102–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Casey RG, et al. Intermittent self-catheterization and the risk of squamous cell cancer of the bladder: an emerging clinical entity? Can Urol Assoc J. 2009;3(5): E51–4.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Locke JR, Hill DE, Walzer Y. Incidence of squamous cell carcinoma in patients with long-term catheter drainage. J Urol. 1985;133(6):1034–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Groah SL, et al. Excess risk of bladder cancer in spinal cord injury: evidence for an association between indwelling catheter use and bladder cancer. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83(3):346–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Roe B. Long-term catheter care in the community. Nurs Times. 1989;85(36):43–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Roe BH. Study of the effects of education on patients’ knowledge and acceptance of their indwelling urethral catheters. J Adv Nurs. 1990;15(2): 223–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Saint S, et al. Urinary catheters: what type do men and their nurses prefer? J Am Geriatr Soc. 1999;47(12): 1453–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Wilde MH. Life with an indwelling urinary catheter: the dialectic of stigma and acceptance. Qual Health Res. 2003;13(9):1189–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Fraczyk L, Godfrey H, Feneley R. A pilot study of users’ experiences of urinary catheter drainage bags. Br J Community Nurs. 2003;8(3):104–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Pinder B, Lloyd AJ, Elwick H, Denys P, Marley J, Bonniaud V. Development and psychometric validation of the intermittent self-catheterization questionnaire. Clin Ther. 2012;34:2302–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Wilde MH, et al. A new urinary catheter-related quality of life instrument for adults. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29(7):1282–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Khoubehi B, et al. Morbidity and the impact on daily activities associated with catheter drainage after acute urinary retention. BJU Int. 2000;85(9): 1033–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Wilde MH. Understanding urinary catheter problems from the patient’s point of view. Home Health Nurse. 2002;20(7):449–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Agarwal A, et al. Comparison of efficacy of oxybutynin and tolterodine for prevention of catheter related bladder discomfort: a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Br J Anaesth. 2006;96(3):377–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Fader M, et al. The selection of female urinals: results of a multicentre evaluation. Br J Nurs. 1999;8(14):918–20. 922-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Macaulay M, et al. A noninvasive continence management system: development and evaluation of a novel toileting device for women. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2007;34(6):641–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Vickerman J. Selecting urinals for male patients. Nurs Times. 2006;102(19):47–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Golji H. Complications of external condom drainage. Paraplegia. 1981;19(3):189–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Saint S, et al. Condom versus indwelling urinary catheters: a randomized trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(7):1055–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Balmforth J, Cardozo LD. Trends toward less invasive treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. Urology. 2003;62(4 Suppl 1):52–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Moore KN, et al. Assessing comfort, safety, and patient satisfaction with three commonly used penile compression devices. Urology. 2004;63(1): 150–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Aintree University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK

    Dev Mohan Gulur M.B.B.S., M.R.C.S.

  2. University of Bristol and Bristol Urological Institute, Bristol, UK

    Marcus J. Drake M.A. (Cantab), D.M. (Oxon.), F.R.C.S. (Urol.)

Authors
  1. Dev Mohan Gulur M.B.B.S., M.R.C.S.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcus J. Drake M.A. (Cantab), D.M. (Oxon.), F.R.C.S. (Urol.)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcus J. Drake M.A. (Cantab), D.M. (Oxon.), F.R.C.S. (Urol.) .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

    Alan J. Wein

  2. Aarhus University, AIAS, Aarhus Institute of Advanced Studies, Aarhus, Denmark

    Karl-Erik Andersson

  3. Urological Institute, University of Bristol and Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom

    Marcus J. Drake

  4. Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA

    Roger R. Dmochowski

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gulur, D.M., Drake, M.J. (2014). Urinary Catheters and Other Devices. In: Wein, A., Andersson, KE., Drake, M., Dmochowski, R. (eds) Bladder Dysfunction in the Adult. Current Clinical Urology. Humana Press, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0853-0_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0853-0_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-0852-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-0853-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation