Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Second generation of temporary implantable nitinol device (iTind) in men with LUTS: 2 year results of the MT-02-study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Assessing medium-term functional results of a novel minimally-invasive treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms due to BPO with the second generation of the temporary implantable nitinol device (iTind; Medi-Tate Ltd®, Israel): 2-year follow-up of a single-arm, prospective, international multicenter study. Further, we aimed to identify preoperative baseline parameters predicting response to iTind treatment.

Methods

Following local ethical committee approval in every participating centre, 81 men with symptomatic BPO (IPSS ≥ 10, peak urinary flow < 12 ml/s, and prostate volume < 75 ml) were enrolled in this study. Patients with PVR > 250 ml, obstructive median lobe, previous prostatic surgery, confounding bladder or sphincter dysfunction based on medical history, active urinary infection and unable to interrupt antithrombotic or antiplatelet treatment were exclusion criteria. A wash-out period of 1 month for alpha-blockers and 6 months for 5-ARIs was mandatory to avoid confounders. The procedure was performed as previously described: implantation under light sedation and removal 5–7 days later with topical sedation. Patients were assessed for perioperative results including OR-time, pain (VAS) and complications (Clavien–Dindo-Grading System); and for functional results (PVR, Qmax, IPSS) and quality of life (QoL) including sexual and ejaculatory function using two yes/no questions. Follow-up assessments were done at 1, 3, and 6 months, and 1 and 2 years.

Results

Of the 81 patients initially enrolled in this study, follow-up included 67 men at 1 year and 51 men at 2 years. For the 51 men included in the present analysis, the median age was 65 years, median prostate volume 37 ml (range 16–65 ml). Baseline values for IPSS and QoL were 20.51 ± 4.58, 3.96 ± 0.87. Qmax and PVR were 7.62 ± 2.25 ml/s and 65.84 ± 38.46, respectively. No intraoperative complications were observed and the average pain level recorded on the visual analogue scale (VAS) was 3.2 ± 1.6. A significant reduction in symptoms and improvement in urinary flow was observed (p < 0.0001) at all assessment points: IPSS-score and QoL improved to 8.51 ± 5.51 and 1.76 ± 1.32, respectively; and Qmax increased to 16.00 ± 7.43 ml/s. None of the patients who were previously sexually active reported a deterioration in sexual or ejaculatory functions according to two yes/no questions over the follow-up period. Excluding the patients lost at follow-up, five patients underwent surgery between 12 and 24 months. Upon investigation, it was discovered that four of the five patients requiring surgery had median lobes and were protocol deviators. A failure analysis was carried out for all 81 patients in order to identify baseline parameters that could predict treatment failure. 58.33% of patients in the failure group (7 out of 12) had median lobes which was found to be statistically significant (p < 0.0001). None of the other preoperative variables (age, prostate volume, IPSS scores, Qmax, PVR, and PSA) were found to predict response to iTind treatment.

Conclusion

iTind treatment for BPO-related LUTS showed marked and durable reduction in symptoms and improvement of functional parameters and quality of life at 24 months of follow-up. It was found that median lobe may predict failure of iTind treatment. According to the yes/no questions, ejaculatory and sexual functions do not seem to be effected following treatment, however, this finding must be supported with further studies using the accepted tools.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Verhamme KM, Dielemann JP, Bleumink GS (2002) Incidence and prevalence of lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia in primary care—the Triump Project. Eur Urol 42:323–328

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Rohrmann S, Katzke V et al (2016) Prevalence and progression of lower urinary tract symptoms in an aging population. Urology 95:158–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cindolo L, Pirozzi L, Faniza C et al (2003) Drug adherence and clinical outcomes for patients under pharmacological therapy for lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic hyperplasia: population-based cohort study. Eur Urol 44:539–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Karavitakis M, Kyriazis I, Herrmann TRW et al (2019) Management of urinary retention in patients with benign prostatic obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 75:788–798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dahm P, Brasure M et al (2017) Comparative effectiveness of newer medications for lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 71(4):570–581

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Presicce F, De Nunzio C et al (2017) The influence of the medical treatment of LUTS on benign prostatic hyperplasia surgery: do we operate too late? Minerva Urol Nefrol 69(3):242–252

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zwergel U, Wullich B, Lindenmeir U et al (1998) Long-term results following transurethral resection of the prostate. Eur Urol 33:476–480

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Wendt-Nordahl G, Bucher B, Hacker A, Knoll T, Alken P, Michel MS (2007) Improvement in mortality and morbidity in transurethral resection of the prostate over 17 years in a single center. J Endourol 21:1018–1027

    Google Scholar 

  9. Reich O, Gratzke C, Bachman A, Seitz M, Schlenker B, Hermanek P et al (2008) Morbidity, mortality, and early outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate: a prospective multicenter evaluation of 10,654 patients. J Urol 180:246–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Christidis D, Mc Grath S, Perera M, Manning T, Bolton D, Lawrentschuk N (2017) Minimally invasive surgical therapies for benign prostatic hypertrophy: the rise in minimally invasive surgical therapies. Prostate Int 5:41–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lourenco T, Shaw M, Fraser C et al (2010) The clinical effectiveness of transurethral incision of the prostate : a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. World J Urol 28:23–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Elkoushy MA, Elshal AM, Elhilali MM (2015) Holmium laser transurethral incision of the prostate: can prostate size predict long-term outcome. Can Urol Assoc J 9:248–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hakenberg OW, Helke C, Manseck A et al (2001) Is there a relationship between the amount of tissue removed at transurethral resection of the prostate and clinical improvement in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Eur Urol 39:412–417

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Pavone C, Abbadessa D et al (2015) Sexual dysfunctions after transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP): evidence from a retrospective study on 264 patients. Arch Ital Urol Androl 87:8–13

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Cornu JN, Ahvai S, Bachmann A et al (2015) A systematic review and meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic obstruction: an update. Eur Urol 67:1066–1096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Herrmann TR (2016) Enucleation is enucleation is enucleation is enucleation. World J Urol 34:1353–1355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Herrmann TR (2016) Long-term outcome after endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: from monopolar enucleation to HoLEP and from HoLEP to EEP. Urol A 55:1446–1454

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Roehrborn CG, Barkin J, Gange SN, Shore ND, Giddens JL et al (2017) Five-year results of the prospective randomized controlled prostatic urethral LIFT study. Can J Urol 24:8802–8813

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gratzke C, Barber N, Speakman MJ (2017) Prostatic urethral lift vs. transurethral resection of the prostate: 2-year results of the BPH6 prospective, multicentre, randomized study. BJU Int 119:767–775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. McVary KT, Rogers T, Roehrborn CG (2019) Rezūm water vapor thermal therapy for lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia: 4-year results from randomized controlled study. Urology 126:171–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Porpiglia F, Fiori C, Bertolo R, Giordano A, Checcucci E, Garrou D, Cattaneo G et al (2018) Three-year follow-up of temporary implantable nitinol device (TIND) implantation for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction. BJU Int 122:106–112

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Porpiglia F, Fiori C, Amparore D, Kadner G, Arya M, Valerio M, Lumen N, Ho BSH, Alonso S, Schulman C, Barber N (2018) Second generation of temporary implantable nitinol device (i-TIND) for the relief of lower urinary tract symptoms due to BPH: results of a prospective, multi-center study at 1 year follow-up. Br J Urol Int 123:1061–1069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Porpiglia F, Fiori C, Bertolo R, Garrou D, Cattaneo G, Amparore D (2015) Temporary implantable nitinol device (TIND): a novel, minimally invasive treatment for relief of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) related to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH): feasibility, safety and functional results at 1 year of follow-up. Br J Urol Int 116:278–287

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Antunes AA, Srougi M, Coelho RF et al (2009) Transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic hyperplasia: how much should be resected? Int Braz J Urol 35:683–689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Peyton CC, Badlani GH (2015) The management of prostatic obstruction with urethral stents. Can J Urol 22(Suppl 1):75–81

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sethi K, Bozin M, Jabane T, McMullin R, Cook D, Forsyth R, Dodds L, Putra LJ (2017) Thermo-expandable prostatic stents for bladder outlet obstruction in the frail and elderly population: an underutilized procedure? Investig Clin Urol 58:447–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Vanderbrink BA, Rastinehad AR, Badlani GH (2007) Prostatic stents for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Curr Urol Opin 17:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Strope SA, Vetter J, Elliott S, Andriole GL, Olsen MA (2015) Use of medical therapy and success of laser surgery and transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 86:1115–1122

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gregor Kadner.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kadner, G., Valerio, M., Giannakis, I. et al. Second generation of temporary implantable nitinol device (iTind) in men with LUTS: 2 year results of the MT-02-study. World J Urol 38, 3235–3244 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03140-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03140-z

Keywords

Navigation