A prospective randomized study comparing a catheter-valve with a standard drainage system

Br J Urol. 1997 Dec;80(6):915-7. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1997.00473.x.


Objective: To determine if the use of a catheter-valve rather than a standard drainage system decreases the morbidity associated with the use of a long-term catheter.

Patients and methods: One hundred patients undergoing long-term catheterization were recruited into a prospective randomized study to investigate the acceptability and determine any increase in infection associated with the use of a catheter-valve, compared with the standard drainage system. Each patient participated in the study protocol for 3 months, during which the frequency of urinary tract infection was assessed, and the patients' views obtained using a standard questionnaire and by interview.

Results: Ninety-four patients completed the study; most (92%) were happy or satisfied with the valve, as opposed to only 35% of those using a standard drainage bag. There was no significant difference between the groups in the incidence of urinary tract infections.

Conclusion: The patients who used the standard drainage system felt their level of activity was impaired, whereas the group who were using the valve did not. In the long-term the valve was cheaper and caused less morbidity, but because it is constructed to allow one-way flow, this was not associated with an increase in the incidence of urinary tract infections.

Publication types

  • Clinical Trial
  • Comparative Study
  • Randomized Controlled Trial

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Equipment Design
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Long-Term Care
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Prospective Studies
  • Urinary Catheterization / adverse effects
  • Urinary Catheterization / instrumentation*
  • Urinary Tract Infections / etiology*
  • Urination Disorders / surgery*