INTRODUCTION: In the last decade, there has been a growing interest in minimally invasive treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) associated with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). In this field, one of the options currently available is the temporary implantable nitinol device (iTIND) (Medi-Tate®; Medi-Tate Ltd., Or Akiva, Israel). PURPOSE OF THE WORK: To review the recent data available in the literature regarding the role of the first-generation (TIND) and second-generation (iTIND) devices for the management of BPH with LUTS, especially focusing on follow-up of functional outcomes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were screened for clinical trials on this topic. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Literature evidences regarding implantation of TIND and iTIND for PBH with LUTS are limited. There are only three studies available, one with a medium-term follow-up. The results of these studies suggested that both the TIND and iTIND implantations are safe, effective, and well-tolerated procedures, allowing spare ejaculation in sexually active patients. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidences emphasize that the temporary implantable nitinol devices are promising alternatives to the standard minimally invasive surgical options for BPH-related LUTS. Further studies are needed to confirm the effectiveness over a long-term follow-up.
INTRODUCTION: In the last decade, there has been a growing interest in minimally invasive treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) associated with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). In this field, one of the options currently available is the temporary implantable nitinol device (iTIND) (Medi-Tate®; Medi-Tate Ltd., Or Akiva, Israel). PURPOSE OF THE WORK: To review the recent data available in the literature regarding the role of the first-generation (TIND) and second-generation (iTIND) devices for the management of BPH with LUTS, especially focusing on follow-up of functional outcomes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were screened for clinical trials on this topic. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Literature evidences regarding implantation of TIND and iTIND for PBH with LUTS are limited. There are only three studies available, one with a medium-term follow-up. The results of these studies suggested that both the TIND and iTIND implantations are safe, effective, and well-tolerated procedures, allowing spare ejaculation in sexually active patients. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidences emphasize that the temporary implantable nitinol devices are promising alternatives to the standard minimally invasive surgical options for BPH-related LUTS. Further studies are needed to confirm the effectiveness over a long-term follow-up.