Contraception
Volume 77, Issue 5 , Pages 360-365 , May 2008

Male condoms that break in use do so mostly by a “blunt puncture” mechanism

  • Nicholas D. White

      Affiliations

    • SSL International, Cambridge Technical Centre, 205 Cambridge Science Park, Cambridge CB4 0GZ, UK
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +44 207 367 5780.
    • ,
  • David M. Hill

      Affiliations

    • SSL International, Cambridge Technical Centre, 205 Cambridge Science Park, Cambridge CB4 0GZ, UK
    • ,
  • Steffen Bodemeier

      Affiliations

    • CPR, Im Kirchenfelde 8, 31557, Sarstedt, Germany

Received 18 September 2007 ,Revised 17 January 2008 ,Accepted 17 January 2008.

References 

  1. Trussell J, Warner DL, Hatcher R. Condom performance during vaginal intercourse: comparison of Trojan-Enz and Tactylon condoms. Contraception. 1992;45:11–19
  2. Rosenberg MJ, Waugh MS, Solomon HM, Lyszkowski AD. The male polyurethane condom: a review of current knowledge. Contraception. 1996;53:141–146
  3. Farr G, Katz V, Spivey SK, Amatya R, Warren M, Oliver R. Safety, functionality and acceptability of a prototype polyurethane condom. Adv Contracept. 1997;13:439–451
  4. Frezieres RG, Walsh TL, Nelson AL, Clark VA, Coulson AH. Breakage and acceptability of a polyurethane condom: a randomized, controlled study. Fam Plann Perspect. 1998;30:73–78
  5. Frezieres RG, Walsh TL, Nelson AL, Clark VA, Coulson AH. Evaluation of the efficacy of a polyurethane condom: results from a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Fam Plann Perspect. 1999;31:81–87
  6. Frezieres RG, Walsh TL. Acceptability evaluation of a natural rubber latex, a polyurethane condom, and a new non-latex condom. Contraception. 2000;61:369–377
  7. Callahan M, Mauck C, Taylor D, Frezieres R, Walsh T, Martens M. Comparative evaluation of three Tactylon™ condoms and a latex condom during vaginal intercourse: breakage and slippage. Contraception. 2000;61:205–215
  8. Cook L, Nanda K, Taylor D. Randomized crossover trial comparing the eZ.on plastic condom and a latex condom. Contraception. 2001;63:25–31
  9. Potter WD, de Villemeur M. Clinical breakage, slippage and acceptability of a new commercial polyurethane condom: a randomized, controlled study. Contraception. 2003;68:39–45
  10. http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/booksReports/latexcondom/behavcharac.htm. The latex condom: recent advances, future directions, chapter three: user behaviours and characteristics related to condom failure. 1998. Accessed 20 December 2007.
  11. http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/booksReports/latexcondom/labvshuman.htm. The latex condom: recent advances, future directions, chapter six: comparing laboratory tests with human use. 1998. Accessed 20 December 2007.
  12. White N, Taylor K, Lyszkowski A, Tullett J, Morris C. Dangers of lubricants used with condoms. Nature. 1988;335:19

☆ This was not a funded project, but day-to-day work for the three authors (especially the two employed by SSL) and was funded by SSL and CPR.

PII: S0010-7824(08)00064-4

doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2008.01.014

Contraception
Volume 77, Issue 5 , Pages 360-365 , May 2008

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution