A comparative study of sanitary napkins and absorbent nappy pads for urine output measurement in neonates

Aim: To compare sanitary napkins and absorbent nappy pads (ANP) for urine output (UO) measurement. Methods: Phase 1: Freshly passed neonatal urine (5, 10 and 15 mL) was poured onto preweighed sanitary napkins or ANP, which were juxtaposed to the genital area of manikins placed in incubators/warmers...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Acta Paediatrica 2009-06, Vol.98 (6), p.970-973
Main Authors: Dutta, Sourabh, Saini, Shiv Sajan, Narang, Anil
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Absorbent Pads
Biological and medical sciences
Equipment Design
General aspects
Humans
Infant Care - instrumentation
Infant Care - methods
Infant, Newborn
Infant, Very Low Birth Weight - urine
Male
Measurement
Medical sciences
Miscellaneous
Neonate
Public health. Hygiene
Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine
Sanitary napkins
Urine
Urine output
Volatilization
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Aim: To compare sanitary napkins and absorbent nappy pads (ANP) for urine output (UO) measurement. Methods: Phase 1: Freshly passed neonatal urine (5, 10 and 15 mL) was poured onto preweighed sanitary napkins or ANP, which were juxtaposed to the genital area of manikins placed in incubators/warmers and weighed at ½, 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 hr. Outcome was percentage weight change from baseline. Phase 2: Five very low birth weight boys in incubators had UO measurement by test tubes. A sanitary napkin or ANP was co‐applied with the test tube for 4 h each. Urine collected in the test tube was measured and poured on the device, which was reapplied. Weight and wetness were checked. Results: Phase 1: Mean urine loss was 8.35, 13.8, 20.1, 25.2, 33.1, 38.7 and 42.6% at ½, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 h, respectively (repeated measures ANOVA [RM‐ANOVA], p < 0.001). Loss was higher with ANP than sanitary napkins (32.1% vs. 13.4%, two‐way RM‐ANOVA, p = 0.001). There was less loss in incubators versus radiant warmers at 6 h (p = 0.09). Phase 2: There was 12.1 and 26% deficit with sanitary napkin and ANP, respectively. Wetness was felt in one and four cases, respectively. Conclusion: Urinary losses are less from sanitary napkins than ANPs.
ISSN:0803-5253
1651-2227
DOI:10.1111/j.1651-2227.2009.01277.x