Aims: This study compared the performance of the four main designs of absorbents for men with light incontinence: pouches (shields), leafs (guards), washable pant with integral pad (pantegral), and small disposable pad.
Materials and methods: We did a multiple crossover trial. Men with light urinary incontinence were recruited. All pouches and leafs available in the UK were identified for inclusion. A single pantegral and small pad were selected based on previous evaluations for design comparison. Products were tested in random order for up to 1 week. Performance criteria (e.g., leakage and comfort) were rated using a validated product performance questionnaire. Wet product weights and amount of leakage were recorded in pad leakage diaries. "Overall opinion" for design performance was used as the primary outcome indicator.
Results: Seventy-four men tested six leafs, six pouches, one pantegral, and one small pad. Leakage data was taken from 3,386 wet pads. The pouches generally performed poorly with few significant differences between products. The leafs were more variable with large and significant differences in ratings. Overall the leaf, pantegral, and small pad designs performed significantly better than the pouch (P <or= 0.01) and the pantegral design performed significantly worse than the leaf (P = 0.01). One leaf product was outstanding and performed significantly better than all other designs (P <or= 0.001).
Conclusion: This is the first published trial of absorbent products specifically designed for men. Results show that one particular leaf product works best, the pantegral is most suitable only for very light incontinence and the pouches are least successful.
(c) British Crown Copyright 2006/DERA-Published with the Permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.