Christopher S. Elliott

Objective To explore the data comparing single‐ vs multi‐use catheters for clean intermittent catheterisation (CIC), consider if the widespread use of single‐use catheters is warranted given the cost and environmental impact, and put forth ideas for future consideration. Methods A primary literature review was performed in PubMed over the past 50 years. Studies that performed comparative analysis of single‐ and multi‐use catheters were included in our review. All studies that reported on primary data were narratively summarised. Results A total of 11 studies were identified that reported on primary data comparing single‐ and multi‐use catheters. There was no appreciable evidence suggesting reusable multi‐use catheters were inferior to single‐use catheters from an infection or usability standpoint. In addition, the environmental and monetary burden of single‐use catheters is significant. Conclusions The intermittent catheter landscape in the USA has a complex past: defined by policy, shaped by industry, yet characterised by a paucity of data demonstrating superiority of single‐use over multi‐use catheters. We believe that the aversion to reusable catheters by many patients and healthcare professionals is unwarranted, especially given the cost and environmental impact. Moving forward, better comparative data and more sustainable practices are needed.