Urinary catheterisation of female dogs: a comparison between three techniques for catheter placement

The objective of this study was to describe a new technique for urinary catheterisation of female dogs using a novel catheterisation device (NCD) and to compare the time taken to place a catheter using this technique with traditional techniques. A secondary objective was to survey participants on wh...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Australian veterinary journal 2020-08, Vol.98 (8), p.364-370
Main Authors: Tipler, AE, Moses, EA, Greer, R, Delisser, P, McCracken, BD, Moses, PA
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Cadavers
catheterisation technique
Catheters
female dog
Regression analysis
urinary catheterisation
urinary tract infection
Urinary tract infections
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3131-8e68253278ecd12d82e382dfd30ffce4e7a5181b2819215bbef759a8dd08f4963
container_end_page 370
container_issue 8
container_start_page 364
container_title Australian veterinary journal
container_volume 98
creator Tipler, AE
Moses, EA
Greer, R
Delisser, P
McCracken, BD
Moses, PA
description The objective of this study was to describe a new technique for urinary catheterisation of female dogs using a novel catheterisation device (NCD) and to compare the time taken to place a catheter using this technique with traditional techniques. A secondary objective was to survey participants on which of the techniques they preferred. Female canine cadavers of varying sizes were utilised and veterinary students who had not previously placed a urinary catheter were enrolled. Each participant performed three catheterisation techniques, Visual with speculum (SPEC), Blind Palpation (BP) and catheterisation with NCD on three sizes of dog. Time required using each technique was compared using Kaplan–Meier plots and mixed models Cox Proportional Hazards regression. Median times to catheterisation were 300 s (IQR 261–417 s) with the SPEC method, 420 s (IQR 253–545 s) with the NCD method and 725 s (574–1032s) with the BP method. Both SPEC and NCD methods were significantly faster compared to the BP method, with Hazard Ratios of 3.66 (95% CI 1.94–6.91, P 
doi_str_mv 10.1111/avj.12961
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2407314929</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2407314929</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3131-8e68253278ecd12d82e382dfd30ffce4e7a5181b2819215bbef759a8dd08f4963</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kLtOwzAUQC0EgvIY-AFkiQWGgJ-Nw1ZVPFWJBVgjx76mqZK42Cmof49LSwck7nKHe3R0dRA6peSKprnWn7Mryooh3UEDmkuaEUX5LhoQQmRGBOMH6DDGGSE8l0zuowPOhFSCqQGyr6HudFhio_sp9BDqqPvad9g77KDVDWDr3-MN1tj4dq7TPR0r6L8AOtxPAwDuwUy7-mMBETsftiY8b7SBFrr-GO053UQ42ewj9Hp3-zJ-yCbP94_j0SQznHKaKRgqJjnLFRhLmVUMuGLWWU6cMyAg15IqWjFFC0ZlVYHLZaGVtUQ5UQz5EbpYe-fBr97py7aOBppGd-AXsWSC5JyKghUJPf-DzvwidOm7RHEhi6EUK-HlmjLBxxjAlfNQtylXSUm5Sl-m9OVP-sSebYyLqgW7JX9bJ-B6DXzVDSz_N5Wjt6e18hsL0421</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2434596546</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Urinary catheterisation of female dogs: a comparison between three techniques for catheter placement</title><source>Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Tipler, AE ; Moses, EA ; Greer, R ; Delisser, P ; McCracken, BD ; Moses, PA</creator><creatorcontrib>Tipler, AE ; Moses, EA ; Greer, R ; Delisser, P ; McCracken, BD ; Moses, PA</creatorcontrib><description>The objective of this study was to describe a new technique for urinary catheterisation of female dogs using a novel catheterisation device (NCD) and to compare the time taken to place a catheter using this technique with traditional techniques. A secondary objective was to survey participants on which of the techniques they preferred. Female canine cadavers of varying sizes were utilised and veterinary students who had not previously placed a urinary catheter were enrolled. Each participant performed three catheterisation techniques, Visual with speculum (SPEC), Blind Palpation (BP) and catheterisation with NCD on three sizes of dog. Time required using each technique was compared using Kaplan–Meier plots and mixed models Cox Proportional Hazards regression. Median times to catheterisation were 300 s (IQR 261–417 s) with the SPEC method, 420 s (IQR 253–545 s) with the NCD method and 725 s (574–1032s) with the BP method. Both SPEC and NCD methods were significantly faster compared to the BP method, with Hazard Ratios of 3.66 (95% CI 1.94–6.91, P &lt; 0.001) and 3.57 (95% CI 1.87–6.81, P &lt; 0.001), respectively. Six of nine participants found the NCD the easiest technique, 5/9 of the participants found the palpation technique most difficult and 4/9 found the speculum technique most difficult. BP appears to be the technique of least preference and increased time requirement. The novel urinary catheterisation device may provide a simpler method of visualisation of the urethral papilla and may provide a more sterile way of placing the catheter, although further investigation is needed to confirm this.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0005-0423</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1751-0813</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1751-0813</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/avj.12961</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32458428</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Melbourne: Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd</publisher><subject>Cadavers ; catheterisation technique ; Catheters ; female dog ; Regression analysis ; urinary catheterisation ; urinary tract infection ; Urinary tract infections</subject><ispartof>Australian veterinary journal, 2020-08, Vol.98 (8), p.364-370</ispartof><rights>2020 Australian Veterinary Association</rights><rights>2020 Australian Veterinary Association.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3131-8e68253278ecd12d82e382dfd30ffce4e7a5181b2819215bbef759a8dd08f4963</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8341-211X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Favj.12961$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Favj.12961$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,786,790,27957,27958,50923,51032</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32458428$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tipler, AE</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moses, EA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Greer, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Delisser, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCracken, BD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moses, PA</creatorcontrib><title>Urinary catheterisation of female dogs: a comparison between three techniques for catheter placement</title><title>Australian veterinary journal</title><addtitle>Aust Vet J</addtitle><description>The objective of this study was to describe a new technique for urinary catheterisation of female dogs using a novel catheterisation device (NCD) and to compare the time taken to place a catheter using this technique with traditional techniques. A secondary objective was to survey participants on which of the techniques they preferred. Female canine cadavers of varying sizes were utilised and veterinary students who had not previously placed a urinary catheter were enrolled. Each participant performed three catheterisation techniques, Visual with speculum (SPEC), Blind Palpation (BP) and catheterisation with NCD on three sizes of dog. Time required using each technique was compared using Kaplan–Meier plots and mixed models Cox Proportional Hazards regression. Median times to catheterisation were 300 s (IQR 261–417 s) with the SPEC method, 420 s (IQR 253–545 s) with the NCD method and 725 s (574–1032s) with the BP method. Both SPEC and NCD methods were significantly faster compared to the BP method, with Hazard Ratios of 3.66 (95% CI 1.94–6.91, P &lt; 0.001) and 3.57 (95% CI 1.87–6.81, P &lt; 0.001), respectively. Six of nine participants found the NCD the easiest technique, 5/9 of the participants found the palpation technique most difficult and 4/9 found the speculum technique most difficult. BP appears to be the technique of least preference and increased time requirement. The novel urinary catheterisation device may provide a simpler method of visualisation of the urethral papilla and may provide a more sterile way of placing the catheter, although further investigation is needed to confirm this.</description><subject>Cadavers</subject><subject>catheterisation technique</subject><subject>Catheters</subject><subject>female dog</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>urinary catheterisation</subject><subject>urinary tract infection</subject><subject>Urinary tract infections</subject><issn>0005-0423</issn><issn>1751-0813</issn><issn>1751-0813</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kLtOwzAUQC0EgvIY-AFkiQWGgJ-Nw1ZVPFWJBVgjx76mqZK42Cmof49LSwck7nKHe3R0dRA6peSKprnWn7Mryooh3UEDmkuaEUX5LhoQQmRGBOMH6DDGGSE8l0zuowPOhFSCqQGyr6HudFhio_sp9BDqqPvad9g77KDVDWDr3-MN1tj4dq7TPR0r6L8AOtxPAwDuwUy7-mMBETsftiY8b7SBFrr-GO053UQ42ewj9Hp3-zJ-yCbP94_j0SQznHKaKRgqJjnLFRhLmVUMuGLWWU6cMyAg15IqWjFFC0ZlVYHLZaGVtUQ5UQz5EbpYe-fBr97py7aOBppGd-AXsWSC5JyKghUJPf-DzvwidOm7RHEhi6EUK-HlmjLBxxjAlfNQtylXSUm5Sl-m9OVP-sSebYyLqgW7JX9bJ-B6DXzVDSz_N5Wjt6e18hsL0421</recordid><startdate>202008</startdate><enddate>202008</enddate><creator>Tipler, AE</creator><creator>Moses, EA</creator><creator>Greer, R</creator><creator>Delisser, P</creator><creator>McCracken, BD</creator><creator>Moses, PA</creator><general>Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8341-211X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202008</creationdate><title>Urinary catheterisation of female dogs: a comparison between three techniques for catheter placement</title><author>Tipler, AE ; Moses, EA ; Greer, R ; Delisser, P ; McCracken, BD ; Moses, PA</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3131-8e68253278ecd12d82e382dfd30ffce4e7a5181b2819215bbef759a8dd08f4963</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Cadavers</topic><topic>catheterisation technique</topic><topic>Catheters</topic><topic>female dog</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>urinary catheterisation</topic><topic>urinary tract infection</topic><topic>Urinary tract infections</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tipler, AE</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moses, EA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Greer, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Delisser, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCracken, BD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moses, PA</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Australian veterinary journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tipler, AE</au><au>Moses, EA</au><au>Greer, R</au><au>Delisser, P</au><au>McCracken, BD</au><au>Moses, PA</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Urinary catheterisation of female dogs: a comparison between three techniques for catheter placement</atitle><jtitle>Australian veterinary journal</jtitle><addtitle>Aust Vet J</addtitle><date>2020-08</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>98</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>364</spage><epage>370</epage><pages>364-370</pages><issn>0005-0423</issn><issn>1751-0813</issn><eissn>1751-0813</eissn><notes>ObjectType-Article-1</notes><notes>SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1</notes><notes>ObjectType-Feature-2</notes><notes>content type line 23</notes><abstract>The objective of this study was to describe a new technique for urinary catheterisation of female dogs using a novel catheterisation device (NCD) and to compare the time taken to place a catheter using this technique with traditional techniques. A secondary objective was to survey participants on which of the techniques they preferred. Female canine cadavers of varying sizes were utilised and veterinary students who had not previously placed a urinary catheter were enrolled. Each participant performed three catheterisation techniques, Visual with speculum (SPEC), Blind Palpation (BP) and catheterisation with NCD on three sizes of dog. Time required using each technique was compared using Kaplan–Meier plots and mixed models Cox Proportional Hazards regression. Median times to catheterisation were 300 s (IQR 261–417 s) with the SPEC method, 420 s (IQR 253–545 s) with the NCD method and 725 s (574–1032s) with the BP method. Both SPEC and NCD methods were significantly faster compared to the BP method, with Hazard Ratios of 3.66 (95% CI 1.94–6.91, P &lt; 0.001) and 3.57 (95% CI 1.87–6.81, P &lt; 0.001), respectively. Six of nine participants found the NCD the easiest technique, 5/9 of the participants found the palpation technique most difficult and 4/9 found the speculum technique most difficult. BP appears to be the technique of least preference and increased time requirement. The novel urinary catheterisation device may provide a simpler method of visualisation of the urethral papilla and may provide a more sterile way of placing the catheter, although further investigation is needed to confirm this.</abstract><cop>Melbourne</cop><pub>Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd</pub><pmid>32458428</pmid><doi>10.1111/avj.12961</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8341-211X</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0005-0423
ispartof Australian veterinary journal, 2020-08, Vol.98 (8), p.364-370
issn 0005-0423
1751-0813
1751-0813
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2407314929
source Wiley Online Library
subjects Cadavers
catheterisation technique
Catheters
female dog
Regression analysis
urinary catheterisation
urinary tract infection
Urinary tract infections
title Urinary catheterisation of female dogs: a comparison between three techniques for catheter placement
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-09-22T15%3A28%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Urinary%20catheterisation%20of%20female%20dogs:%20a%20comparison%20between%20three%20techniques%20for%20catheter%20placement&rft.jtitle=Australian%20veterinary%20journal&rft.au=Tipler,%20AE&rft.date=2020-08&rft.volume=98&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=364&rft.epage=370&rft.pages=364-370&rft.issn=0005-0423&rft.eissn=1751-0813&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/avj.12961&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2407314929%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3131-8e68253278ecd12d82e382dfd30ffce4e7a5181b2819215bbef759a8dd08f4963%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2434596546&rft_id=info:pmid/32458428&rfr_iscdi=true