ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Value and Limitations of Urethrotech Catheterisation Device to Manage Difficult Urethral Catheterisation in Male Spinal Cord Injury Patients.
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A novel device for endoscopy-guided bladder catheterization outside of the operating theatre: early clinical experience.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Methods: We used a Urethrotech catheterisation device in 57 male patients with spinal cord injury, in whom urethral catheterisation was unsuccessful or previous catheterisation was difficult. Results: Urethrotech catheter could be inserted in 51 patients. No patient developed urinary tract infection. In one patient, the guidewire could not be introduced into the bladder, and a coude Foley catheter was inserted. In two patients, the guidewire was inserted into the bladder, but a 16 CH catheter could not be advanced over the guidewire. Emergency suprapubic cystostomy was performed in one case; in the other, urethral stricture was dilated; a size 12 CH catheter was inserted. In three patients, the guidewire curled back into the urethra because of severe spasm of the urethral sphincter. Catheterisation with a Tiemann catheter was successful after administration of diazepam and/or stretching of the anal sphincter by another health professional, which caused reflex relaxation of the urethral sphincter. Complications of Urethrotech catheterisation included urethral bleeding, haematuria, pain, doubling back of the guidewire due to spasm of the urethral sphincter or from an empty bladder. We adopted variations in technique, eg filling the bladder with saline prior to catheterisation when feasible, insertion of the guidewire by the side of the old catheter, use of Tiemann tip catheters, administration of antibiotics, diazepam to control spasms, nifedipine to control autonomic dysreflexia, analgesics, stretching of the anal sphincter to induce reflex relaxation of the urethral sphincter, urgent imaging studies to confirm correct positioning of the catheter, omitting anticoagulants and monitoring patients, who developed bleeding. Conclusion: Use of Urethrotech in spinal injury patients warranted adaptations to the technique, which required expertise, experience, and backup facilities. To ensure patient safety, Urethrotech catheter should be used in a hospital setting, and by medical personnel with experience in the management of spinal cord injury patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.