Abstract
Male condoms made from synthetic materials offer an alternative to latexcondoms that may be more acceptable to users, thereby potentially resultingin more protected acts of intercourse. A prospective, noncomparativeclinical study was conducted to evaluate the safety of using certainpolyurethane materials to make condoms. Fifty-one healthy, contracepting,mutually monogamous couples were recruited between June 30 and November 24,1993 to use a prototype roll-on polyurethane condom developed by FamilyHealth International. Couples were to use the condoms for 10 consecutiveacts of vaginal intercourse over a 4-week period. Baseline and postexposuregenital examinations, including colposcopy for female participants, wereperformed. Fifty couples completed the study requirements and 517 acts ofintercourse occurred using the condoms. Two adverse events were reported:irritation of introitus in a female participant and a small irritatederythematous lesion on a male participant‘s penis. Neither event wasconsidered to be serious and both were resolved without treatment. Breakageand slippage rates were similar to those reported for latex condoms. Theseresults suggest that polyurethane condoms represent a safe, functional andacceptable alternative to latex condoms.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Stone KM. HIV, other STDs, and barriers. In: Mauck CK, Cordero M, Gabelnick HL, Spieler JM, Rivera R, eds. Barrier Contraceptives. New York: Wiley-Liss & Sons, Inc.; 1994:203–12.
Upchurch DM, Ray P, Reichart C et al. Prevalence and patterns of condom use among patients attending a sexually transmitted disease clinic. Sex Transm Dis. 1992;19:175–80.
Consumers Union. How reliable are condoms? Consum Rep. 1995;May:320–5.
Rosenberg MJ, Waugh MS, Solomon HM, Lyszkowski AD. The male polyurethane condom: a review of current knowledge. Contraception. 1996;53:141–6.
Steiner M, Piedrahita C, Joanis C, Glover L, Spruyt A. Condom breakage and slippage rates among study participants in eight countries. Int Fam Plann Perspect. 1994;20:55–8.
Albert AE, Hatcher RA, Graves W. Condom use and breakage among women in a municipal hospital family planning clinic. Contraception. 1991;43:167–76.
Rosenberg MJ, Cramer DA, Feldblum PJ. STD, IVF, and barrier contraception. J Am Med Assoc. 1987;258:1729–30.
Family Health International. Prototype condom evaluation: donning investigation (1711). Unpublished study report, 1996.
Family Health International. Functionality study of prototype Ring 8 and standard latex condoms. Unpublished study report, February 1992.
Trussell J, Warner DL, Hatcher RA. Condom performance during vaginal intercourse: comparison of Trojan-Enz and Tactylon condoms. Contraception. 1992;45:11–19.
Farr G, Gabelnick H, Sturgen K, Dorflinger L. Contraceptive efficacy and acceptability of the female condom. Am J Pub Health. 1994;84(12):1960–4.
Bounds W, Guillebaud J, Newman GB. Female condom (Femidon): a clinical study of its use effectiveness and patient acceptability. Br J Fam Plann. 1992;18(2):36–41.
Rademaker M, Forsyth A. Allergic reactions to rubber condoms. Genitourin Med. 1985;65:194–5.
Lewis HR. “Sex allergy” may stem from latex condoms. Med Asp Hum Sex. 1991:11.
Stehlin D. Latex rubber: when rubber rubs the wrong way. FDA Consumer. 1991:16–21.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Farr, G., Katz, V., Spivey, S. et al. Safety, functionality and acceptability of a prototype polyurethane condom. Advances in Contraception 13, 439–451 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006509827835
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006509827835