1,720,962 research outputs found
Absorbent products for moderate-heavy urinary and/or faecal incontinence in women and men
No full textBackground: ncontinence is a common and embarrassing problem which has a profound effect on social and psychological well-being. Many people wear absorbent products to contain urine and/or faeces and protect their clothes and dignity. Users of absorbent pads are very diverse, including younger women, particularly those who have had children, older men with prostate disease, people with neurological conditions and older people with mobility and mental impairment. Whilst small absorbent pads for light incontinence are adequate for some users with low volumes of urine loss, for others with higher volumes more absorbent products are needed. A practical definition of moderate-heavy incontinence is urine or faecal loss that requires a large absorbent pad (typically with a total absorbent capacity of 2000 g to 3000 g) for containment.Objectives: to assess the effectiveness of the different types of absorbent product designed for moderate-heavy incontinence.Search strategy: we searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register for trials carried out between 1 January 1998 and 1 January 2008 (searched 7 February 2008), and the reference lists of relevant articles. Absorbent pads are subject to frequent modification by manufacturers and trials more than 10 years old were therefore not included in this review.Selection criteria: all randomised or quasi-randomised trials of absorbent products for moderate-heavy incontinence.Data collection and analysis: two review authors assessed the methodological quality of potentially eligible studies and independently extracted data from the included trials.Main results: two studies with a total of 185 participants met the selection criteria. These trials studied all the absorbent product designs included in this review. One trial took place in nursing homes, the other in people's own homes. Gender was found to be a significant variable in both trials, and accordingly the results were analysed in gender groups. Data were presented on all included outcomes, except for quality of life.The results show that there is no single best design (i.e. one design that is significantly better than all other designs and for all users). Of the disposable designs, the more expensive pull-up and T-shaped diaper designs were not better overall than the diaper for men, but the diaper was better than the insert (the cheapest), making the diaper the most cost-effective disposable design for men both day and night. For women, disposable pull-ups were better overall than the other designs (except for those living in nursing homes when disposable diapers are better when used at night), but they are expensive. Unlike men, women in the community did not favour diapers (or T-shape diapers) and insert pads are therefore the most cost-effective alternative. Washable diapers are the least expensive design but are unacceptable to most women at any time. However, some people (particularly men living at home) prefer them at night and for them they are a cost-effective design.No firm conclusions could be drawn about the performance of designs for faecal incontinence and there was no firm evidence that there are differences in skin health between designs.Authors' conclusions: although data were available from only two eligible trials the data were sufficiently robust to make some recommendations for practice. There is evidence that different designs are better for men and women. Diapers are the most cost-effective disposable design for men. Disposable pull-ups are most preferred for women but are expensive: disposable inserts are a cheaper alternative (except in nursing homes where diapers are preferred to inserts at night). Washable diapers are the cheapest design but have limited acceptability, confined mainly to some men at night. There were not enough people in the trials to draw any conclusions about which designs are best for faecal incontinence and no particular design seemed to be better or worse for skin health. People have different preferences for absorbent product designs and using a combination (different designs for day/night, going out/staying in) may be more effective and less expensive than using one design all the tim
Absorbent products for light urinary incontinence in women [Review]
No full textBackground:
Incontinence is a common and embarrassing problem which has a profound effect on social and psychological well-being. Many people wear absorbent products to contain urine leakage and protect their clothes. It can be difficult to define light urinary incontinence because urine volumes, flow and frequency rates may vary substantially whilst still being considered 'light'. Light incontinence may encompass occasional (monthly) leaks of very small amounts (e.g. 1 g to 2 g) up to frequent leaks (several times per day) of larger amounts (e.g. 20 g to 50 g). A practical definition is urine loss that can be contained within a small absorbent pad (typically 50 g to 500 g; ISO 1996).Objectives:
To assess the effectiveness of different types of absorbent product designs for women with light urinary incontinence.Search strategy:
We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (3 May 2006) and the reference lists of relevant articles were perused.Selection criteriaTypes of studies:
All randomised or quasi-randomised trials of absorbent products for women with light urinary incontinence.Types of participants:
Women with light urinary incontinence.Types of intervention:
Absorbent products (disposable insert pads, menstrual pads, washable pants with integral pad, washable insert pads) suitable for light incontinence.Data collection and analysis:
Two review authors assessed the methodological quality of potentially eligible studies and independently extracted data from the included trial.Main results:
One study with 85 participants met the selection criteria. This trial studied all the absorbent product designs included in this review. Data were presented on all included outcomes. For preventing leakage, for preference and for overall acceptability disposable insert pads are better than disposable menstrual pads which are better than washable pants with integral pad which are better than washable insert pads. There is no strong evidence that either disposables or washables are better for skin health. The disposable insert is the most expensive design and there is no dominant design for cost-effectiveness. There is evidence that some women will prefer alternative designs which are all cheaper than disposable inserts.Authors' conclusions:
Although data were available from only one eligible trial the data were sufficiently robust to make recommendations for practice. Disposable insert pads are typically more effective than the other designs considered. However, because they are the most expensive, providing choice of designs (or combinations of designs for different circumstances) is likely to be cost-effective
How well does ISO 11948-1 (the Rothwell method) for measuring the absorption capacity of incontinence pads in the laboratory correlate with clinical pad performance
No full textThe ability of ISO 11948-1 (the Rothwell method) to predict the leakage performance of disposable bodyworn pads for heavy urinary incontinence was investigated by measuring correlations between models based on clinical evaluations of 138 diapers and inserts (the two major design categories), and technical models based on their Rothwell absorption capacities and design features. Correlations were poorer than in the original 1993 study for the standard (r?0.87 compared with r?0.95), but still strong enough to help with purchasing choices.For a given Rothwell capacity, the leakage performance of diapers was far superior to inserts; for example, diapers containing 450 and 300 g of urine performed, as well as inserts containing 300 and 100 g, respectively. No evidence was found for any other design feature having a significant impact on leakage performance. The coefficient of variation for Rothwell capacity (a measure of product consistency) had significant impact on the leakage performance of diapers, but not inserts. The probability of diapers with the poorest consistency leaking exceeded that for the best by about 10 percentage points. Similarly, diapers were about 10 percentage points more likely to leak when used at night than during the day. Differences between day-time and night-time use of inserts were not studied.<br/
A critical investigation of ISO 11948-2 and ISO 11948-1 for predicting the leakage performance of small disposable incontinence pads for lightly incontinent women
No full textISO 11948-2 – an international standard laboratory method developed to predict the leakage performance of small disposable pads for lightly incontinent women – was investigated. The repeatability and reproducibility (precision within and between laboratories, respectively) of two variants on the method were found to be poor. The coefficient of variation for each method variant in each laboratory (two laboratories ran each variant) was higher than 40% for about half the 12 products evaluated. Results differed by up to 94% between laboratories for a given product. The ability of the method to predict the leakage performance of pads was investigated by measuring correlations between the clinical evaluations of the 12 products, and technical evaluations using ISO 11948-2. Correlations were very weak (r ? 0.487). Accordingly, it is recommended that 11948-2 is withdrawn.A second international standard method (ISO 11948-1) – developed for evaluating large pads, but sometimes used on small ones – was also investigated. Correlations between the clinical evaluations of the 12 products and technical evaluations using ISO 11948-1 were weak (r ? 0.560). Accordingly, it is recommended that ISO 11948-1 is not used for evaluating small disposable bodyworn pads for women.<br/
Sheaths for urinary incontinence: a randomized crossover trial
No full textObjective: To evaluate the full range of self-adhesive continence sheaths for men available in the UK and thus provide clinicians and consumers with a basis for product selection. Subjects and methods: Fifty-eight volunteers (aged 30–89 years) tested each of six different self-adhesive sheaths available in the UK in September 1998 for 1 week each. Thirty subjects applied the sheaths themselves and 28 subjects relied on a carer to do so. During each week subjects completed a diary recording sheath changes and the result of skin inspection, to note any unscheduled sheath changes (because of sheath detachment) and any skin problems. At the end of each week an 11-item questionnaire was completed using a three-point rating scale ('good', 'acceptable', 'unacceptable') to assess the key aspects of product performance. Results: A significantly higher proportion of subjects scored the 'Aquadry Clear Advantage' sheath as 'good' than four of the other sheaths (P < 0.01) and a significantly higher proportion found the 'Incare' sheath to be 'unacceptable' than all of the other sheaths (P < 0.001) for the 'overall opinion' question. Sheath detachments (sheath falling off or blowing off) for the 'Incare' were significantly more common than for four of the other products (P < 0.01). Sheath detachments for the 'Aquadry Clear Advantage' were significantly less common than for two of the other products (P < 0.01). A significantly higher proportion of subjects found sheaths with an applicator to be 'unacceptable' than sheaths with no applicator (P < 0.001) for the 'ease of putting on' and 'overall opinion' questions (when adjusted for previous product use and person applying the sheath). Conclusions: There were substantial differences between products in their general performance and ergonomics, and for the frequency of detachment as recorded in the diary. The 'Aquadry Clear Advantage' was particularly successful and the 'Incare' particularly unsuccessful when compared with the other sheaths. Sheaths with no applicators were preferred to those with applicators. Applicators are mainly designed to make sheaths easier to put on, especially for carers, but there was no evidence that carers preferred applicators. This may have implications for manufacturers
Coated catheters for intermittent catheterization: smooth or sticky?
No full textObjective: To evaluate the current range of hydrophilic-coated catheters for intermittent self-catheterization, focusing on the adherence of the catheter to the urethral mucosa at the end of catheterization. Subjects and methods: In a prospective randomized study, 61 community-based men tested each of four different hydrophilic-coated catheters available in the UK at the time. Subjects used each of the four test catheters for 1 week in a random order, and were provided with the number and size of catheter they normally used. To assess the products, the subjects: (i) timed seven catheterizations using a stop-watch to determine the time taken from extracting the catheter from the water-filled package, to removing the catheter from the penis, having emptied the bladder; (ii) recorded the severity of 'sticking' on catheter removal on a three-point scale (not at all, a little, a lot); and (iii) completed a product-performance questionnaire. Results: There were no significant differences in ratings of 'sticking' between the 'Easicath' and 'Lofric' (P > 0.05), but there were significant differences between these two products and the 'Aquacath' and the 'Silky', which were found to 'stick' more (P < 0.001). The 'Silky' was reported to stick significantly more than the 'Aquacath' (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Adherence to the urethral mucosa on catheter removal was a common problem, occurring with all catheters, but two products were significantly more likely to stick than the other two. The clinical importance of 'sticking' and the long-term implications are currently unknown. The relative 'sticking' of uncoated catheters has also not been established
A computerised real-time measurement system to locate the position of the urine stream in designing urine collection devices for women
No full textClinicians often use intuitive models based on clinical experience or regression models based on population studies to plan treatment of gait-related disorders. Because such models are constructed using data collected from previous patients, the predicted clinical outcome for a particular patient may not be reliable. We propose a new approach that uses computational models based on engineering mechanics to predict post-treatment outcome from pre-treatment movement data. The approach utilizes a four-phase optimization process built around a dynamic, patient-specific gait model. The first three phases calibrate the model's joint, inertial, and control parameters, respectively, where the control parameters are weights in an optimization cost function that tracks the patient's pre-treatment gait motion and loads. The last phase predicts the patient's post-treatment gait pattern by performing a tracking optimization with the calibrated model modified to simulate the selected treatment.We demonstrate the approach by simulating how two treatments for knee osteoarthritis (OA) – gait modification and high tibial osteotomy (HTO) surgery – alter the external knee adduction torque for a specific patient. By performing multiple tracking optimizations, we calibrated the model's parameter values to reproduce the patient's knee adduction torque curve for a toe out gait motion. When we performed a tracking optimization with the calibrated model using a modified footpath to simulate an increased stance width, the predicted reduction in both adduction torque peaks matched experimental results to within 4.8% error. When we performed a tracking optimization with the same model using modified leg geometry to simulate HTO surgery, the predicted reductions were consistent with published data. The approach requires further evaluation with a larger number of patients to determine its effectiveness for planning the treatment of gait-related disorders on a patient-specific basis.<br/
The further development of the active urine collection device: a novel continence management system
No full textContinence difficulties affect the lives of a substantial minority of the population. Women are far more likely than men to be affected by urinary incontinence but the range of management options for them is limited. There has been considerable interest in developing an external urine collection system for women but without success to date. This paper describes the development and preliminary clinical testing of an active urine collection device (AUCD), which could provide a solution for sufferers. The device uses stored vacuum, protected by a high bubble point filter, to remove urine as quickly as it is produced. This allows a small battery-operated pump to provide the required vacuum, enabling the device to be portable.Two different types of non-invasive patient/device interface were developed, and tested by volunteers: urinal and small pad. The slimline urinal was popular with users although liquid noise was a problem. The pad interface was successful on occasions but further work is necessary to produce a reliable pad.This study has successfully demonstrated that a prototype AUCD liquid handling system can remove urine at clinically relevant flowrates. While further development is required, volunteer tests have shown that the AUCD could be a useful advance in continence management.<br/
Development and preliminary testing of a standardized method for quantifying excess water in over-hydrated skin using evaporimetry
No full textAlthough evaporimetry (the measurement of water vapour flux density from the skin) has often been used to study the impact on skin hydration of using products such as baby diapers and incontinence pads, it is difficult to interpret results and to compare data from different studies because of the diversity of unvalidated methodologies used. The aim of this work was to develop a robust methodology for measuring the excess water in over-hydrated skin and test it on volar forearm and hip skin which had been occluded with saline soaked patches. Three repeat measurements were made on the volar forearm and the hip of five young (31–44 years) and six older (67–85 years) women and moderately good within-subject repeatability was found for both skin sites for both subject groups. Measurements taken from the hip were significantly higher (P = 0.001) than those from the arm and had larger coefficients of variation (3.5–22.1%) compared to arms (3.0–14.0%). There were no significant differences between young and older skin, implying that women for future studies could be recruited without regard to age. This is the first time that a robust evaporimetric methodology for quantifying excess water in over-hydrated skin has been described and validated, and it will form a solid basis for future wor
- …
