{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,18]],"date-time":"2026-07-18T06:08:18Z","timestamp":1784354898662,"version":"3.55.0"},"reference-count":10,"publisher":"S. Karger AG","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2004,1,1]],"date-time":"2004-01-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1072915200000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.karger.com\/Services\/SiteLicenses"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2004,1,1]],"date-time":"2004-01-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1072915200000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.karger.com\/Services\/SiteLicenses"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Urol Int"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2004]]},"abstract":"<i>Introduction:<\/i> The aim of the present study is to compare a hydrophilic catheter to the standard polyvinyl chloride catheter with regard to bacteriological safety and overall comfort in patients undergoing intravesical immuno- or chemotherapy for bladder cancer. <i>Materials and Methods:<\/i> One hundred patients (80 males, 20 females; median age 65.8 years, range 48\u201379 years) eligible for intravesical prophylaxis of superficial bladder cancer recurrences were randomized to receive intravesical therapy using a standard catheter (group A, n = 50) or a hydrophilic catheter (group B, n = 50). Urinalysis and urine culture were performed 2 days after catheterization. Comfort during catheterization was assessed by a 5-point visual analogue scale at the end of the first four instillations. <i>Results:<\/i> Urinary tract infection (UTI) was detected in 7.4% of catheterizations in group A, whereas it occurred in 3.5% of catheterizations in group B (p < 0.01). <i>Escherichia coli<\/i> was the most frequent pathogen regardless of the device used. At the end of each of the first four instillations, the mean score for discomfort was significantly higher in group A than in group B (p < 0.001), although catheterization was progressively better tolerated regardless of the device used (both p < 0.005). None of the patients were found to be suffering from orchitis, epididymitis or gross haematuria. <i>Conclusion:<\/i> Hydrophilic catheters may be used safely and are well tolerated by patients undergoing intravesical immuno- or chemotherapy. The hydrophilic catheter was associated with a significantly lower occurrence of UTI and higher acceptability compared to the standard device. These data should be considered with regard to patient compliance with intravesical therapy.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1159\/000078798","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2004,7,19]],"date-time":"2004-07-19T06:45:27Z","timestamp":1090219527000},"page":"19-22","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":12,"title":["Standard versus Hydrophilic Catheterization in the Adjuvant Treatment of Patients with Superficial Bladder Cancer"],"prefix":"10.1159","volume":"73","author":[{"given":"Luca","family":"Cindolo","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Emiliano A.","family":"Palmieri","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Riccardo","family":"Autorino","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Luigi","family":"Salzano","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Vincenzo","family":"Altieri","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"127","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2008,6,25]]},"reference":[{"key":"ref1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/00005392-199911000-00040"},{"key":"ref2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/00005392-199606000-00020"},{"key":"ref3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/00005392-199502000-00015"},{"key":"ref4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/00005392-199612000-00044"},{"key":"ref5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/00005392-199502000-00014"},{"key":"ref6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1038\/sj.sc.3100817"},{"key":"ref7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1038\/sj\/sc\/3100935"},{"key":"ref8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1080\/00365590151030822"},{"key":"ref9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0302-2838(01)00026-4"},{"key":"ref10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1089\/089277901750299366"}],"container-title":["Urologia Internationalis"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.karger.com\/Article\/Pdf\/78798","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.karger.com\/Article\/Pdf\/78798","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,4,24]],"date-time":"2025-04-24T03:18:05Z","timestamp":1745464685000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/karger.com\/article\/doi\/10.1159\/000078798"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2004]]},"references-count":10,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2004,7,1]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1159\/000078798","archive":["Portico"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["0042-1138","1423-0399"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0042-1138","type":"print"},{"value":"1423-0399","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2004]]}}}