• 1. Smarick S. Urinary catheterization. In: Silverstein DC, Hopper K, eds. Small animal critical care medicine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders, 2009;603606.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2. Aldrich J. Urethral catheterization. In: Burkitt Creedon JM, Davis H, eds. Advanced monitoring and procedures for small animal emergency and critical care. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2014;393408.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3. Lees GE, Osborne CA, Stevens JB, et al. Adverse effects caused by polypropylene and polyvinyl feline urinary catheters. Am J Vet Res 1980;41:18361840.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4. Nacey JN, Delahunt B, Tulloch AG. The assessment of catheter-induced urethritis using an experimental dog model. J Urol 1985;134:623625.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Randomized controlled trial to evaluate a novel two-catheter technique for urethral catheterization in anesthetized healthy female cats and small dogs

View More View Less
  • 1 1Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a novel 2-catheter technique for urethral catheterization in female cats and small dogs and compare the time required for and success rates achieved by use of the novel technique versus traditional methods (blind technique in cats and digital palpation in dogs) as performed by personnel (catheter placers [CPs]) with different levels of experience in urinary catheter placement.

ANIMALS

39 healthy sexually intact female animals (24 cats and 15 dogs weighing < 10 kg).

PROCEDURES

2 CPs were board certified in veterinary surgery, 1 of whom had experience with the novel technique, and the other did not. The third CP was a veterinary surgical intern who was unfamiliar with the novel technique. For each animal enrolled in the study, 1 CP performed catheterization with the novel technique and traditional methods. Data recorded included the time required for successful catheterization and whether a successful catheterization was achieved within a 3-minute time limit.

RESULTS

The overall success rates were 79.5% (31/39 animals) with the novel technique and 43.6% (17/39 animals) with traditional methods. Median times for successful catheter placement were 48 seconds for the novel technique and 41 seconds for traditional methods. Among CPs, success rates or times to successful catheter placement did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Study results suggested that the novel 2-catheter technique for urethral catheterization may be a more efficient option than traditional methods for gaining access to the urinary bladder in cats and small dogs, particularly when patient size limits use of instrumentation or digital palpation.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a novel 2-catheter technique for urethral catheterization in female cats and small dogs and compare the time required for and success rates achieved by use of the novel technique versus traditional methods (blind technique in cats and digital palpation in dogs) as performed by personnel (catheter placers [CPs]) with different levels of experience in urinary catheter placement.

ANIMALS

39 healthy sexually intact female animals (24 cats and 15 dogs weighing < 10 kg).

PROCEDURES

2 CPs were board certified in veterinary surgery, 1 of whom had experience with the novel technique, and the other did not. The third CP was a veterinary surgical intern who was unfamiliar with the novel technique. For each animal enrolled in the study, 1 CP performed catheterization with the novel technique and traditional methods. Data recorded included the time required for successful catheterization and whether a successful catheterization was achieved within a 3-minute time limit.

RESULTS

The overall success rates were 79.5% (31/39 animals) with the novel technique and 43.6% (17/39 animals) with traditional methods. Median times for successful catheter placement were 48 seconds for the novel technique and 41 seconds for traditional methods. Among CPs, success rates or times to successful catheter placement did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Study results suggested that the novel 2-catheter technique for urethral catheterization may be a more efficient option than traditional methods for gaining access to the urinary bladder in cats and small dogs, particularly when patient size limits use of instrumentation or digital palpation.

Supplementary Materials

    • Supplementary Video 1 (MP4 40946 kb)

Contributor Notes

Dr. Abrams' present address is the Department of Clinical Sciences and Advanced Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104.

Address correspondence to Dr. Selmic (selmic.1@osu.edu).