Background: Total gastrointestinal transit times (GITT) and segmental colonic transit times (CTT) are commonly used to describe bowel function in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). Study design: Reproducibility study. Objectives: To describe inter-and intrasubjective as well as interobserver variations in GITT and segmental CTT in patients with SCI. Furthermore, to study associations between GITT or segmental CTT and colorectal symptoms. Setting: Spinal Cord Unit, Viborg Hospital, Denmark. Methods: Thirty SCI patients took 10 radio-opaque markers on 6 consecutive days and an abdominal X-ray was taken on day 7. The same procedure was repeated after 3 months. GITT and CTT were computed from the number of markers in the entire colorectum and in the left and the right colon. Intra-and interobserver variations were described as dispersion (numerical difference/mean). Results: Intersubjective variation was large for GITT (range: 0.6-6.3 days), right CTT (range: 0.1-5.5 days) and left CTT (range: 0-4.9 days). Intrasubjective variation was acceptable for GITT (dispersion: 0.28) but less good for right (dispersion: 0.63) and left CTT (dispersion: 0.68). Interobserver variation was very small. No correlations were found between GITT, right or left CTT and colorectal symptoms. Conclusion: GITT and right and left CTT are of limited value for clinical decision-making in individual patients but may be useful for comparison of groups of patients with SCI.

Study design: Self-catheterising males aged X18 years with spinal cord lesion and normal/impaired urethral sensation were enrolled in this comparative, randomised, crossover and open-labelled multicentre trial. Objectives: When possible, intermittent catheterisation is the preferred method of bladder emptying for neurogenic bladder dysfunction. Hydrophilic-coated catheters have improved safety and ease of use, and a new compact catheter for men has been developed to improve discretion. Methods: Participants self-catheterised at least four times daily for 14 days with a standard or compact catheter. The primary outcome measure was discomfort, using a visual analogue scale. Non-inferiority was defined as a difference in mean discomfort score of o0.9 cm. Other assessments included ease of use, discretion and the degree of pain, stinging or resistance. Results: A total of 36 individuals participated and 30 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The mean difference between catheters for participant discomfort was À0.347 cm (95% confidence intervals: À1.493, 0.800). There were significant differences (Pp0.0001) in favour of the compact catheter for disposal and discretion, and inserting, storing, carrying and controlling the catheter. Fewer participants experienced resistance with the compact catheter. Participants were less likely to touch the coated part of the compact catheter. One adverse event was reported for each catheter. Conclusions: The coated compact catheter is at least as acceptable to the user as the standard catheter, with no inferiority observed in the level of discomfort. Secondary endpoints suggest that there are advantages of using the compact catheter, particularly with regard to discretion and ease of use.