Page 10 - Guideline

Cathétérisme

41. Newman DK, Willson MM. Review of intermittent catheterization and current best practices. Urol Nurs 58. Watanabe T, Yamamoto S, Gotoh M et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of long-term intermittent self-
2011;31:12-28, 48; quiz 29. https://doi.org/10.7257/1053-816X.2012.31.1.12 catheterization with hydrophilic-coated and uncoated catheters in patients with spinal cord injury in Japan.
42. Kessler TM, Ryu G, Burkhard FC. Clean intermittent self-catheterization: A burden for the patient? Neurourol LUTS 2017;9:142-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/luts.12122
Urodyn 2009;28:18-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.20610 59. Håkansson MÅ, Neovius K, Lundqvist T. Healthcare costs associated with hydrophilic-coated and non-
43. Shaw C, Logan K, Webber I et al. Effect of clean intermittent self-catheterization on quality of life: A coated urinary catheters for intermittent use in the United States. Urol Nurs 2016;36. https://doi.
qualitative study. J Adv Nurs 2008;61:641-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04556.x org/10.7257/1053-816X.2016.36.5.233
44. Wyndaele JJ. Intermittent catheterization: Which is the optimal technique? Spinal Cord 2002;40:432-7. 60. Rognoni C, Tarricone R. Healthcare resource consumption for intermittent urinary catheterization: Cost-
https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.sc.3101312 effectiveness of hydrophilic catheters and budget impact analyses. BMJ Open 2017;7:e012360.
45. Blumenthal D. Part 1: Quality of care — what is it? N Engl J Med 1996;335:891-4. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012360
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199609193351213 61. Truzzi JC, Teich V, Pepe C. Can hydrophilic coated catheters be beneficial for the public healthcare system in
46. McConville A. Patients’ experiences of clean intermittent catheterization. Nurs Times 2002;98:55-6. Brazil? A cost-effectiveness analysis in patients with spinal cord injuries. Int Braz J Urol 2018;44:121-31.
47. Bolinger R, Engberg S. Barriers, complications, adherence, and self-reported quality of life for https://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2017.0221
people using clean intermittent catheterization. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2013;40:83-9. 62. Qualité des services de santé Ontario. Intermittent catheters for chronic urinary retention: A health tech-
https://doi.org/10.1097/WON.0b013e3182750117 nology assessment. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser [Internet]. À l’adresse : http://www.hqontario.ca/
48. Kreuter M, Siosteen A, Erkholm B et al. Health and quality of life of persons with spinal cord lesion in evidence-to-improve-care/journal-ontario-health-technologyassessment-series Feb;19(1) 2019. Consulté
Australia and Sweden. Spinal Cord 2005;43:123-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.sc.3101692 le 8 mai 2020.
49. Pinder B, Lloyd AJ, Elwick H et al. Development and psychometric validation of the intermittent self-catheter- 63. Welk B, Isaranuwatchai W, Krassioukov A et al. Cost-effectiveness of hydrophilic-coated intermittent cath-
ization questionnaire. Clin Ther 2012;34:2302-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2012.10.006 eters compared with uncoated catheters in Canada: A public payer perspective. J Med Econ 2018;21:639-
50. Fumincelli L, Mazzo A, Martins JCA et al. Quality of life of patients using intermittent urinary catheteriza- 48. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2018.1443112
tion. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem 2017;25:e2906. https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.1816.2906 64. Qualité des services de santé Ontario. Intermittent catheters for chronic urinary retention: A health technol-
51. Chick HE, Hunter KF, Moore KN. Parent and child experiences using a hydrophilic or reused PVC catheter ogy assessment. Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2019;19:1.
for intermittent catheterization. J Clin Nurs 2013;22:513-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 65. Averbeck MA, Krassioukov A, Thiruchelvam N et al. The impact of different scenarios for intermittent bladder
2702.2012.04066.x catheterization on health state utilities: Results from an internet-based time trade-off survey. J Med Econ
52. Kiddoo D, Sawatzky B, Bascu CD et al. Randomized crossover trial of single-use hydrophilic coated vs. 2018;21:945-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2018.1486846
multiple-use polyvinylchloride catheters for intermittent catheterization to determine incidence of urinary 66. Duffy LM, Cleary J, Ahern S et al. Clean intermittent catheterization: Safe, cost-effective bladder man-
infection. J Urol 2015;194:174-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.12.096 agement for male residents of VA nursing homes. J Am Geriatr Soc 1995;43:865-70. https://doi.
53. Avery M, Prieto J, Okamoto I et al. Reuse of intermittent catheters: A qualitative study of IC users’ perspec- org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1995.tb05528.x
tives. BMJ Open 2018;8:e021554. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021554 67. King RB, Carlson CE, Mervine J et al. Clean and sterile intermittent catheterization methods in hospitalized
54. Chartier-Kastler E, Amarenco G, Lindbo L et al. A prospective, randomized, crossover, multicenter study patients with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1992;73:798-802.
comparing quality of life using compact vs. standard catheters for intermittent self-catheterization. J Urol 68. Carapeti E, Andrews S, Bentley P. Randomized study of sterile vs. non-sterile urethral catheterization. Ann
2013;190:942-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.04.026 R Coll Surg Engl 1996;78:59-60.
55. Lapides J, Diokno AC, Lowe BS et al. Followup on unsterile intermittent self-catheterization. J Urol 69. Lemke JR, Kasprowicz K, Worral PS. Intermittent catheterization for patients with a neurogenic bladder:
1974;111:184-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)59922-X Sterile vs. clean using evidence-based practice at the staff nurse level. J Nurs Care Qual 2005;20:302-6.
56. Bermingham SL, Hodgkinson S, Wright S et al. Intermittent self-catheterization with hydrophilic, gel reser- https://doi.org/10.1097/00001786-200510000-00004
voir, and non-coated catheters: A systematic review and cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ 2013;346:e8639. 70. Gammack JK. Use and management of chronic urinary catheters in long-term care: Much controversy, little
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e8639 consensus. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2002;3:162-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1525-8610(04)70459-4
57. Clark JF, Mealing SJ, Scott DA et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of long-term intermittent catheteriza-
tion with hydrophilic and uncoated catheters. Spinal Cord 2016;54:73-7. https://doi.org/10.1038/ Correspondance: D Lysanne Campeau, Département d’urologie, Hôpital général juif, Université
re
sc.2015.117 McGill, Montréal (Qc), Canada; lysanne.campeau@mcgill.ca

CUAJ • Juillet 2020 • Volume 14, numéro 7 R19