The content of this page is intended for healthcare professionals only.

Are you a Healthcare Professional?


Li L, Ye W, Ruan H, Yang B, Zhang S (2013)
Impact of hydrophilic catheters on urinary tract infections in people with spinal cord injury: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Evidence of a 43% risk-reduction for hematuria with hydrophilic coated catheters compared to non-hydrophilic catheters.
Meta-analysis of 464 patients and five randomized controlled trials (RCT) with hydrophilic catheters, whereof three with LoFric.

Stensballe J, Looms D, Nielsen PN, Tvede M (2005)
Hydrophilic-coated catheters for intermittent catheterisation reduce urethral micro trauma: a prospective, randomised, participant-blinded, crossover study of three different types of catheters
Evidence of less microscopic hematuria and pain with LoFric. For example, frequency of hematuria was 40% in LoFric, 58% in SpeediCath and 67% in Incare Advance (PVC)
Cross-over study on LoFric and other hydrophilic and non-hydrophilic catheters in 40 healthy volunteers.

Vapnek JM, Maynard FM, Kim J (2003)
A prospective randomized trial of the LoFric hydrophilic coated catheter versus conventional plastic catheter for clean intermittent catheterization
Evidence on lower incidence of hematuria with Lofric compared with uncoated plastic catheters with added lubricant. For example, no hematuria was reported for the LoFric group while mild hematuria was reported for the control group.
1 year study on 22 LoFric users and 26 PVC catheter-users.

Hedlund H, Hjelmas K, Jonsson O, Klarskov P, Talja M (2001)
Hydrophilic versus non-coated catheters for intermittent catheterization 
Evidence on decreased urethral irritation with hydrophilic catheter, primarily related to LoFric studies. 
Review on hydrophilic catheters.

Sutherland RS, Kogan BA, Baskin LS, Mevorach RA (1996)
Clean intermittent catheterization in boys using the LoFric catheter
Evidence of significantly less hematuria with LoFric compared to uncoated plastic catheter with added lubricant. For example, 9 episodes of hematuria were detected in 6 subjects who used LoFric and 19 episodes were detected in 11 subjects in the control group after 2 months use.
2 months study on 16 LoFric users and 14 PVC catheter users.

Vaidyanathan S, Soni BM, Dundas S, Krishnan KR (1994)
Urethral cytology in spinal cord injury patients performing intermittent catheterisation
Evidence of LoFric causing less urethral inflammation and presence of bacteria than PVC and urethral indwelling catheters. The study shows a more than 10-fold increase in urethral inflammatory response with PVC catheters compared with LoFric.
Study on 17 LoFric, 14 PVC and 11 indwelling catheter users. 

Hellstrom P, Tammela T, Lukkarinen O, Kontturi M (1991)
Efficacy and safety of clean intermittent catheterization in adults
Evidence on the low incidence of urethral complications associated with LoFric. No cases of urethral trauma were observed during the study period.
40 month follow-up study on 41 LoFric users.