Journals / Turkish Journal of Urology / 2021 / Cilt: 47 - Sayı: 6

iTIND for BPH: Technique and procedural outcomes: A narrative review of current literature

Pages
470–481
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In conclusions, current clinical evidence suggests that temporary implantation of iTIND is a valid option for the minimally invasive surgical treatment of BPH-related LUTS.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In the last few years, new technologies have been developed to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in order to offer valid surgical alternatives to transurethral resection of the prostate with lower complications and hospitalization while maintaining satisfactory functional results.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A systematic research of the available literature on this topic was performed via Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases in April 2021.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusions, current clinical evidence suggests that temporary implantation of iTIND is a valid option for the minimally invasive surgical treatment of BPH-related LUTS.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2021 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

In the last few years, new technologies have been developed to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in order to offer valid surgical alternatives to transurethral resection of the prostate with lower complications and hospitalization while maintaining satisfactory functional results. Among these new approaches, transurethral implantation of first- and second-generation temporary implantable nitinol device (TIND and iTIND, respectively) (Medi-TateVR ; Medi-Tate Ltd., Or Akiva, Israel) has been proposed. The aim of this work is to describe the surgical technique and to perform a systematic review of the available literature on follow-up of functional outcomes. A systematic research of the available literature on this topic was performed via Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases in April 2021. Current evidence regarding the implantation of iTIND to treat BPH-related lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTSs) is still limited. Seven studies have been found. Only one randomized controlled trial has been published reporting short-term follow-up of implantation of iTIND versus sham procedure. All the studies reported that both procedures are safe, effective, and well-tolerated. Moreover, such treatment seems to not affect patient’s sexual and ejaculatory functions. In conclusions, current clinical evidence suggests that temporary implantation of iTIND is a valid option for the minimally invasive surgical treatment of BPH-related LUTS. Further studies are required in order to confirm the functional results, especially over a long-term follow-up.

🔖

Cite This Article

FIORI, C., CILLIS, S. D., VOLPI, G., CHECCUCCI, E., CATTANEO, G., MEZIERE, J., MANFREDI, M., DIO, M. D., AMPARORE, D., PORPIGLIA, F. (2021). iTIND for BPH: Technique and procedural outcomes: A narrative review of current literature. Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 47 - Sayı: 6, 470–481. https://ajindex.com/articles/404221

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Egan KB. The epidemiology of benign prostatic hyperplasia associated with lower urinary tract symptoms: Prevalence and incident rates. Urol Clin North Am. 2016;43(3):289-297. [CrossRef] 2. Sun Y, Peng B, Lei GL, Wei Q, Yang L. Study of phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors and a-adrenoceptor antagonists used alone or in combination for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2020;72(1):13-21. [CrossRef] 3. Leow JJ, Cindolo L, Pirozzi L, et al. 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. 2015;68(3):418-425. [CrossRef] 4. Gravas S, Cornu JN, Gacci M, et al. EAU guidelines on the management of non-neurogenic male LUTS. In Presented at the EAU Annual Congress, Milan, 2021. ISBN 978-94-92671-13-4. 5. Cornu JN, Ahyai S, Bachmann A, et al. 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. 2015;67(6):1066-1096. [CrossRef] 6. Alexander CE, Scullion MM, Omar MI, et al. Bipolar versus monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;12(12):CD009629. [Cross- Ref] 7. Sagen E, Namnuan RO, Hedelin H, Nelze´n O, Peeker R. The morbidity associated with a TURP procedure in routine clinical practice, as graded by the modified Clavien-Dindo system. Scand J Urol. 2019;53(4):240-245. [CrossRef] 8. Rassweiler J, Teber D, Kuntz R, Hofmann R. Complications of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)–incidence, management, and prevention. Eur Urol. 2006;50(5):969-980. [CrossRef] 9. Teles SB, Cha JD, Zhao H, Herrmann T, Chan VW, Teoh JY. Shedding light on polypragmasy of pain after transurethral prostate surgery procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol. 2021. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-021-03678-6. [CrossRef] 10. Cacciamani GE, Cuhna F, Tafuri A, et al. European association of urology young academic urologists (EAU-YAU) urotechnology and men’s health working groups. Anterograde ejaculation preservation after endoscopic treatments in patients with bladder outlet obstruction: Systematic review and pooled-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2019;71(5):427- 434. [Cr