Literature DB >> 29359881

3-Year follow-up of temporary implantable nitinol device implantation for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction.

Francesco Porpiglia1, Cristian Fiori1, Riccardo Bertolo1, Andrea Giordano1, Enrico Checcucci1, Diletta Garrou1, Giovanni Cattaneo1, Stefano De Luca1, Daniele Amparore1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To report 3-year follow-up results of the first implantations with a temporary implantable nitinol device (TIND® ; Medi-Tate Ltd., Or Akiva, Israel) for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 32 patients with LUTS were enrolled in this prospective study. The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee. Inclusion criteria were: age >50 years, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) ≥10, peak urinary flow (Qmax ) <12 mL/s, and prostate volume <60 mL. The TIND was implanted within the bladder neck and the prostatic urethra under light sedation, and removed 5 days later in an outpatient setting. Demographics, perioperative results, complications (according to Clavien-Dindo classification), functional results, and quality of life (QoL) were evaluated. Follow-up assessments were made at 3 and 6 weeks, and 3, 6, 12, 24 and 36 months after the implantation. The Student's t-test, one-way analysis of variance and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for statistical analyses.
RESULTS: At baseline, the mean (standard deviation, sd) patient age was 69.4 (8.2) years, prostate volume was 29.5 (7.4) mL, and Qmax was 7.6 (2.2) mL/s. The median (interquartile range, IQR) IPSS was 19 (14-23) and the QoL score was 3 (3-4). All the implantations were successful, with a mean total operative time of 5.8 min. No intraoperative complications were recorded. The change from baseline in IPSS, QoL score and Qmax was significant at every follow-up time point. After 36 months of follow-up, a 41% rise in Qmax was achieved (mean 10.1 mL/s), the median (IQR) IPSS was 12 (6-24) and the IPSS QoL was 2 (1-4). Four early complications (12.5%) were recorded, including one case of urinary retention (3.1%), one case of transient incontinence due to device displacement (3.1%), and two cases of infection (6.2%). No further complications were recorded during the 36-month follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: The extended follow-up period corroborated our previous findings and suggests that TIND implantation is safe, effective and well-tolerated, for at least 36 months after treatment.
© 2018 The Authors BJU International © 2018 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  zzm321990BPHzzm321990; zzm321990LUTSzzm321990; zzm321990TINDzzm321990; #UroBPH; minimally invasive techniques; nitinol; urethral implantable device

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29359881     DOI: 10.1111/bju.14141

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  13 in total

Review 1.  Beyond medications: office-based procedures for benign prostatic obstruction.

Authors:  Phuong U Tran; Amanda S J Chung
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-04-29       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 2.  [Imaging in individualized uro-oncology].

Authors:  J Bründl; J Breyer; M Burger
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 3.  Indications, techniques, and role of new minimally invasive benign prostate hyperplasia surgical options.

Authors:  Serdar Yalçın; Lütfi Tunç
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2020-07-02

4.  [Minimally invasive treatment options for the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia].

Authors:  J Franz; R Suarez-Ibarrola; D S Schoeb; C Gratzke; A Miernik
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2021-11-05       Impact factor: 0.639

5.  Urinary and sexual function after treatment with temporary implantable nitinol device (iTind) in men with LUTS: 6-month interim results of the MT-06-study.

Authors:  Cosimo De Nunzio; Francesco Cantiello; Cristian Fiori; Fabio Crocerossa; Piero Tognoni; Daniele Amparore; Valeria Baldassarri; Javier Reinoso Elbers; Fernando Gomez Sancha; Francesco Porpiglia
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2020-08-26       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Minimizing Sexual Dysfunction in BPH Surgery.

Authors:  Joon Yau Leong; Amir S Patel; Ranjith Ramasamy
Journal:  Curr Sex Health Rep       Date:  2019-07-20

Review 7.  Current Treatment for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.

Authors:  Arkadiusz Miernik; Christian Gratzke
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2020-12-04       Impact factor: 5.594

Review 8.  Minimally invasive treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Juan Va Franco; Jae Hung Jung; Mari Imamura; Michael Borofsky; Muhammad Imran Omar; Camila Micaela Escobar Liquitay; Shamar Young; Jafar Golzarian; Areti Angeliki Veroniki; Luis Garegnani; Philipp Dahm
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-07-15

Review 9.  [Surgical treatment of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) in patients under anticoagulation: a review of the bleeding risks of established techniques].

Authors:  S Deininger; T Herrmann; S Schönburg; P Törzsök; T Kunit; L Lusuardi
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 10.  An Update on Minimally Invasive Surgery for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Techniques, Risks, and Efficacy.

Authors:  Aditya Srinivasan; Run Wang
Journal:  World J Mens Health       Date:  2019-08-20       Impact factor: 5.400

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.