[Edit] Other materials [edit] Polyurethane

See also: AT-10 Resin

Polyurethane condoms can be thinner than latex condoms, with some polyurethane condoms only 0.02 mm thick.^[18] Polyurethane is also the material of many female condoms.

Polyurethane can be considered better than latex in several ways: it conducts heat better than latex, is not as sensitive to temperature and ultraviolet light (and so has less rigid storage requirements and a longer shelf life), can be used with oil-based lubricants, is less allergenic than latex, and does not have an odor.^[19] Polyurethane condoms have gained FDA approval for sale in the United States as an effective method of contraception and HIV prevention, and under laboratory conditions have been shown to be just as effective as latex for these purposes.^[20]

However, polyurethane condoms may be more likely to slip or break than latex,^[19][21] and are more expensive.

[Edit] Lambskin

Condoms made from one of the oldest condom materials, labeled "lambskin" (made from lamb intestines) are still available. They have a greater ability to transmit body warmth and tactile sensation, when compared to synthetic condoms, and are less allergenic than latex. However, conventional wisdom holds that there is an increased risk of transmitting STDs compared to latex because of pores in the material, which are thought to be large enough to allow infectious agents to pass through, albeit blocking the passage of sperm. Lambskin condoms are frequently called ineffective with regards to preventing sexually transmitted diseases.^[22] Nonetheless, hard data regarding the alleged lack of efficacy are lacking. Although a search of the PubMed database of medical literature does not demonstrate any clinical trials demonstrating that lambskin condoms have decreased efficacy, at least one study does suggest that use of non-latex condoms is associated with higher rates of breakage and slippage. [1]

While it may make sense to portray lambskin condoms as simply "ineffective" for the sake of simplicity in educational settings, it is more accurate to state that there are solid scientific reasons to expect lambskin condoms will be less effective in preventing STDs than latex and poluyrethane, though the degree of such presumed decreased efficacy is not known. It is unlikely that lambskin condoms would be "ineffective" in preventing STDs; for example, the risk of transmitting a disease through depositing 1.5 to 5 mLs of ejaculate directly into a partner's body cavity without the use of any barrier protection would be anticipated to be greater than the risk involved in depositing such ejaculate into a lambskin barrier within a body cavity, with the barrier subsequently removed from the body cavity along with all or virtually all of the ejaculate.

Because the degree of efficacy of lambskin condoms has not been rigorously investigated and because there exists a solid rationale to expect them to have decreased efficacy, it is prudent to treat them as not effective. If one has concerns about the possibility of STD transmission, it is prudent to use latex or polyurethane condoms, rather than lambskin condoms.