How many yrs post are you?Im 11 yrs and straight cathe. Im starting to notice its a lil harder to get the tube in. Is their any procedure a doc can do to remove scar tissue without jeopardizing the sphincter.
ron c7 --- On Sat, 3/14/09, Tod E. Santee <[email protected]> wrote: From: Tod E. Santee <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] Super pubic vs foley or cathing To: "Dollbug" <[email protected]>, [email protected] Date: Saturday, March 14, 2009, 7:05 PM Dollbug, As I'm sure someone has, will and/or will always tell you, no 2 quads are the same and what works for one... or even most... won't necessarily work for your son. So, you are wise in getting a range of opinions. I began using intermittent cathing with a Texas between after being released from acute care to rehab. That worked for several years but became cumbersome as I always needed someone around to do it since I couldn't do it myself. Also, the skin kept getting raw, breaking down, there would be "shrinkage" and the Texas would pop off leaving a mess, etc. so I reluctantly decided a urethral foley would be best. For several years it was. I always had difficulties with UTIs -- even with the Texas -- and continuing with the foley. Once I became "more active" (so to speak) the tube from the urethra was a bit unsightly and somewhat in the way. I had a urologist appt once and as the doc reinflated the foley balloon he didn't realize the extra pressure until the catheter and a pressurized stream of blood came flying out at him! He was inflating it in the urethra. I had several more problems after that and eventually decided on the suprapubic. Personally, I think it's great! I recently went to my new urologist for a regular exam and he had trouble getting a catheter to pass the urethra. He tried a scope (I watched) and as he went in we began seeing more and more scar tissue from years of wear from using the intermittent and foley caths Then we hit an almost complete mesh-like, impassable network of scar tissue where we believe the other uro doc inflated the balloon in the wrong place. So... we still did my bladder check with a scope but needed the suprapubic entry to get there. (All was healthy, btw.) The good thing about the suprapubic is that it is easily reversed, but it does take some bladder re-training if he'd want to go all the way back to intermittent again instead of a urethral cath. With an SP, the bladder can shrink significantly and needs time to strech out again. The sphincter can also get stubbonly "tight" so overfilling and leaking can be an issue after a SP is first removed if a Texas or foley isn't usn't used. All-in-all, I liked the urethral foley because I never wanted an extra hole in my body. But I also appreciate the freedom of a suprapubic and the fact that *eventually* I ended up with less frequent UTIs. These are FAR less labor intensive than intermittent and/or Texas caths. But everyone has issues with each option. Best of luck in yours and his decision! Will your son be online any time soon chatting with us on the Quad-List? Best wishes, --Tod ---- Dollbug <[email protected]> wrote: > My 22 year old son, who became a quad about 6 months ago, has had numerous issues since initial hospitalization. The most recurring is UTI and some bladder infections. He was in a hospital and rehab for 3-1/2 months total. He had a foley for 2 months initially. After the 2 months, cathing began every 4 hours. About a month after cathing began he started to urinate between caths. He complained of the mess and they put a Texas catheter on him and still cathed every 4 hours. After about 3 weeks of being at home (I was cathing and dealing with the Texas catheter) his penis became quite raw. About 3 times more urine coming out of him was going into the catheter bag as opposed to cathing. I asked that a foley be put in due to all this. A few people have told us a super pubic will cause a lot less UTI's and much less invasive on the body. Please share your views on a super pubic versus a foley or > cathing. Many thanks for any replies!
