Old Style Double Balloon Enema Nozzle

Eric, as I said it's been a couple of years since I ordered mine, but the DBC that I ordered from MedTech was definitely made by Rusch. Whether they changed the distance between balloons over time, I don't know.

Eric, as I said it's been a couple of years since I ordered mine, but the DBC that I ordered from MedTech was definitely made by Rusch. Whether they changed the distance between balloons over time, I don't know.

@FSP,

Boy, I hope you’re right and with no structural changes. Those 4-5 old Rusches I had from Tyler and VetMed, now both firms defunct I think, were really excellent. Very comfortable, very erotic, and very effective. As usual for just me, I had a small learning curve to figure the optimal inflation pressures for both balloons, and I gradually increased the pressure and size over time. Early on, I actually lost (well, expelled, not lost) one inner balloon during a cramp as it pushed out right past my sphincter. I quickly learned to inflate more and pay more attention to my sphincter control, even with the DBC in. After that, they worked wonderfully until eventual outer rupture. I hope these new ones work as well. I’ll report ASAP after they arrive.

Eric

Eric,

Let me know how it turns out as I would love to get my hands on one of the original double balloons… I had one many years ago but alas they do wear out.

@itsameah,

Thanks. Will do. I understand your recollection and desire for a Rusch Latex DBC. I loved them. No reply yet from my inquiry to one American catheter supply advertising Rusch #264530 catheters, found on Google. My order from MedTech still sitting in Frankfurt since Friday night/Sat morning. The DHL policy is that only the seller/shipper MedTech3000 can start an inquiry into the package’s progress or excessive delay, not me. 👎🏻👎🏻

Eric

I wouldn't know what to do without one

I wouldn't know what to do without one

@Luscious_Liza,

Inflatable butt plug. Wish I had one. Waiting for DBCs to arrive.

Eric

Eric,

Let me know how it turns out as I would love to get my hands on one of the original double balloons… I had one many years ago but alas they do wear out.

Eric, as I said it's been a couple of years since I ordered mine, but the DBC that I ordered from MedTech was definitely made by Rusch. Whether they changed the distance between balloons over time, I don't know.

@FSP and @itsameah,

My order of 2 latex DBCs from MedTech3000 arrived yesterday after about 17 shipping days, 11 business days. The balloons do look to be farther apart than my old authentic Rusch-manufactured DBCs. I’ve only inserted it once so far to see the feel and need for inflation level without putting an enema through it yet. The balloons and black inflators seem a good deal stiffer than the same Rusch components. I see no identifying markings on the catheter, inflators or shipping materials to tell the manufacturer. I’ll probably send MedTech3000 another EMail tomorrow to ask if they can specify the manufacturer.

I sent a couple of inquiries to both Teleflex and CNA who advertised Rusch catheters on a Google search, but neither actually sells them any longer. More later.

Eric

@ericmacson huh, that's too bad. I'm sure that mine says Rusch on it somewhere so they must have changed suppliers. I hope it works out for you.

@ericmacson huh, that's too bad. I'm sure that mine says Rusch on it somewhere so they must have changed suppliers. I hope it works out for you.

@FSP,

Thank you - I do appreciate that. I’ll keep posting here when I acquire new data on my new MedTech3000 DBC‘s provenance and real life enema performance and any other valid Rusch DBC sources. There are still several Rusch sources listed on a Google search but I’ve only been able to contact 2 so far, CNA and Teleflex.

Eric

A bit uninformed here, but what is the importance/significance of a “Rusch” inflatable nozzle? Quality, functionality, durability?

A bit uninformed here, but what is the importance/significance of a “Rusch” inflatable nozzle?

@gwhap,

Happy and fun to explain, and very simple, though a touch long in history. The very simple, TLDR answer is that it works very well for many people, including myself. To me they are very comfortable to insert, inflate, wear for long periods and perhaps most importantly, fit my anatomy very well and do a very effective job at helping me retain the large, long enemas I prefer. My usual recreational/sexual enema is 3-4 quarts held for 30-60 minutes. I believe my record retention (actually very enjoyable) was thanks to my ex-wife in 2005 or 2006 during one of our intimate sexual evenings using enemas. As my Switch Domme she’d usually make me hold 2-4 quarts for 3-4 hours during kinky sex play, but occasionally she’d make me retain it overnight which would last as long as 8-10 hours.

Rusch is a US manufacturer, brand or model of many latex and silicone and perhaps other urinary, rectal and other catheters for medicine. These are made with 2, 1 or 0 inflatable balloons to aid fluid retention or not in the organ of choice. Among them is a model of what we often refer to here as a DBC or Double Balloon (Rectal, Retention, or Enema) Catheter for administering and retaining an enema. These are/were bona fide Medical catheters, long used (including on me by a radiologist at the tender age of about 13 in 1965 for a Barium enema) for helping patients retain Barium Enemas for lower GI diagnosis. Enema lovers, kinksters and fetishists (including myself and many here) use them for administration and retention of enemas, especially when the enema is large, retained for a long time, multiple, or irritating.

The Rusch brand or model of latex DBC in particular is one that many of us either started using when first taking enemas or discovered later in our enema careers. It was my first and only DBC model until just recently when my last one ruptured its outer balloon. I’ve had about 4-5 over about 20 years. I would like them again to replace my broken ones, but having trouble finding them now.

DISCLAIMER: Rusch catheters are great for me and many others, but there are several or perhaps many other models in latex and silicone which I’ve never tried that many other people swear by.

TLDR: I love using Rusch latex DBC’s for large, long enemas. YMMV.

Eric

@ericmacson Thanks Eric. Is your desire for a Rusch DBC product loyalty or is there something about their design that provides a better fit/seal? I know some DBC’s have the ballons too far apart to seal well. Does the Rusch seal better?

@ericmacson Thanks Eric. Is your desire for a Rusch DBC product loyalty or is there something about their design that provides a better fit/seal? I know some DBC’s have the ballons too far apart to seal well. Does the Rusch seal better?

@gwhap,

Not product loyalty per se, just excellent comfort and performance. I bought my first which just happened to be a Rusch latex DBC. After that first one from Beth Tyler in the ‘80’s or ‘90’s, (sorry, I’d need receipt evidence - truly ATROCIOUS memory here, which I’ve been fighting against my entire life). Something in the design of that first Rusch just fit perfectly and gave me comfort, retention and eroticism I never wanted to lose. I just continued ordering the same Rusch latex DBC every time. When Tyler closed, I found my next one by Google in about 2015 at a US veterinary supplier called vetmed.co (that’s correct, NOT .coM, but only .co). Except in the UK domains like .co.uk, I’d never seen a .co website until vetmed. The Rusch from them lasted 2-3 years but finally ruptured the outer balloon resting in a drawer, not inflated. I’ve been looking ever since. Vetmed didn’t exist any longer when I went back to buy my 2nd Rusch from them. Someone else on Zity told me they had a Rusch from MedTech3000.de in Germany, but after I ordered a set of 2 from them on Jan 28, 2022, I heard from a different member that his from MedTech3000 wasn’t Rusch. I looked at the website again and couldn’t verify the manufacturer as Rusch. I’d call it a stupid rookie mistake, but at the time I had no other source for Rusch, so I just lost patience and jumped the gun. Same when they arrived here yesterday. No Rusch label, and on quick first glance it looks like the balloons are farther apart than on a Rusch. I haven’t tried an actual enema through it yet, but I hope it works well enough to use. Still looking on the Internet for a true Rusch supplier.

Eric

@luv3h - which one do you like better? Which is easiest to insert? Gives the best seal? tnx…

I wish that I could find these on Amazon!

@ericmacson

This post may be of help & based on what I've read so far I'm assuming you may not know of Ruschs product history hence I'd recommend you contact theTeleflex Corporation as they are the registered trademark owners of the US line of Rusch products. Prior to Teleflex Corp's acquisition of Rusch they were made & marketed out of West Germany with a registered outlet in Austria taken over by Medtech.de

www.teleflex.com Situated in Morrisville Nth Carolina

Phone : 919-544-8000

Toll Free : 866-246-6990

Teleflex supply a range of in dwelling catheters & an array of pre & post op surgical consumables to the US medical institutions

If Teleflex are hesitant or reluctant to supply I'm sure they are able to verify the Rusch product branding for you.

You may recall going back as far as 6 or 7 years now I'd promoted the Rusch product as an alternative to the troubled Klystra brand which ultimately didn't survive

At one time the owner of Siliconenozzles.com had been looking into the tooling costs & set up of a reliable DBC . . The owner of SN & manufacturer is a zity member who'd considered the proposal at that time, however I'm assuming SN rejected it due to costings.

The authentic Rusch product should be marked however I can see there maybe a branding dispute because of manufacture licensing.

@ericmacson

This maybe of help & based on what I've read so far I'm assuming you may not know of Ruschs product history hence I'd recommend you contact the Teleflex Corporation as they are the registered trademark owners of the US line of Rusch products. Prior to Teleflex Corp's acquisition of Rusch they were made & marketed out of West Germany with a registered outlet in Austria taken over by Medtech.de

www.teleflex.com Situated in Morrisville Nth Carolina

Teleflex supply a range of in dwelling catheters & an array of pre op & post op surgical consumables to the US medical institutions

If Teleflex are hesitant or reluctant to supply I'm sure they are able to verify the Rusch product branding for you.

You may recall going back as far as 6 or 7 years now I'd promoted the Rusch product as an alternative to the troubled Klystra brand which ultimately didn't survive

At one time the owner of Siliconenozzles.com had been looking into the tooling costs & set up of a reliable DBC . . The owner of SN & manufacturer is a zity member who'd considered the proposal at that time, however I'm assuming SN rejected it due to the costings.

@That_Australian,

Thanks for noticing. Interesting information about Rusch and Teleflex, thanks.

Back in late January and early February I did a Google search for the Rusch latex DBC #264530. I exchanged numerous E-mails with two US companies listed in the search, Teleflex and CNA Medical. CNA said their stock was supplied by Teleflex, and eventually I discovered that CNA had none in stock, and later that Teleflex had left the GI catheter market and no longer made the product. The latest EM I’ve had from Teleflex stated:

”Teleflex exited the Gastroenterology market several years ago and the 264530 is one of the products that was discontinued without replacement at that time which is why it is classed as obsolete and is no longer available. At the time, we suggested reviewing options from both Kimberly Clark and Corpak. Both companies have changed hands since then and both were last acquired by Owens & Minor.

I hope this is helpful and that you have a good week.

Cathi Repetto

Sr. Key Account Specialist

Military & Tactical/Distribution Division

Teleflex Medical

P: 678-314-5889

E: cathi.repetto@teleflex.com

Teleflex

3015 Carrington Mill Blvd.; Morrisville, NC 27560

Teleflex.com”

I haven’t pursued this any further because I’d placed an order for two latex DBCs from MedTech3000.de and was waiting to see how they worked. When I ordered, I made the mistake of thinking they were the same Rusch catheters I had before. However, when they arrived hey looked different, with balloons spread farther from each other and no Rusch # on the catheters. I’m testing the MedTech catheters for now, and depending on results may pursue this further. So far on one single use for a 3 quart enema the catheter seems to work well enough. We’ll see with further retention tests.

Further comments welcome - thanks for the post.

All the best,

Eric

@ericmacson

As their product has been discontinued then I'd suggest that the Medtech supplied item is NOT a Rusch but a Generic product made somewhere in the EU.

Alternatively you could play fox & email their Austrian branch to see if they have the genuine Rusch in stock

Wow, I had no idea Teleflex had dropped their whole gastro line… Damn, now I'm wishing I had bought a few spares to keep tucked away!

I've got one of the orange nozzles with yellow balloons that is my go-to double balloon catheter, it's been my favorite for years. And then I have 2 of the more "traditional" nozzles that have the dual inflator bulbs, one is lightly used and one is still new in bag which I guess is now my only spare!

Thanks for all the research and keeping us updated!

They're not exactly a high volume market, and medical related stuff has difficulties and liabilities attached to it to where small volume very-off-label markets may not be desirable.

Makes you wonder how mechanized you would have to be to make them.

I'm late to the thread but I've bought authentic Rusch DB Nozzle from medtech before too, complete with branding. It's very different from their own nozzle which has the balloons further apart and 2 inflators instead of one.

@eeetime - seems to me the fluted one was easiest to insert, but just like my older (and now long gone) SBC from the past, neither really does an excellent job of sealing. Oh they do assist, but you will get small leakage regardless.

@ericmacson - I agree, the balloons on the DBC from MedTech are further apart than the older Rusch nozzles that I remember purchasing from the Tylers. I experienced a little leakage when I last used this new one, but once total volume got above 3.5QT the back-pressure helped keep the inner balloon seated fairly snug (as well as the fact I did pump both balloons up fairly full to begin with.)

Never had much luck with the double balloon models. The ones I have used leaked air, poped inside or launched the squeeze bulbs. For me a large single ball seems to work best. When it is fully inflated a fart can't make its way out. Take a look at Twist my Rubber arm or Extreme restraints. Using a clamp on the air hose makes it work the best.

If you want one get it from Germany it will cost a fortune but it will be quality

I've had little success with the “Cleanstream” variety. Their quality is abysmal, quality control nonexistent. I think my experience is probably the same as others. I would definitely opt for a good single balloon….

The first 250/250 latex double balloon rectal catheter I bought was from Beth Tyler, and it was a Rusch 264530. That was a long time ago, maybe 20 years or so. After it developed a hole, a bought one on e-bay from Medtech3000, it was not the same as the Rusch. The balloons were further apart and oriented differently, but it worked just fine. Beth Tyler had instructions that stated the maximum pumps were 4 for each balloon for the Rusch, but my wife pumps both balloons 5 times and sometimes 6 times with the Medtech3000 nozzle if the fit is not snug enough for her liking. I have no idea where Medtech3000 gets the nozzle, and I have bought maybe 5 additional nozzles from them (have 2 new ones as spares), I'm just glad they are still available.