You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Surgical Therapy & New Technology II (MP09)1 Sep 2021MP09-04 iTind FOR THE TREATMENT OF LUTS SECONDARY TO BPH IN POLYMORBID PATIENTS: THOSE IN ACUTE URINARY RETENTION AND ON ANTI-COAGULANTS Gregor Kadner, Karl Rohrmann, Gabriel Schell, Philipp Baumeister, and Thomas Herrmann Gregor KadnerGregor Kadner More articles by this author , Karl RohrmannKarl Rohrmann More articles by this author , Gabriel SchellGabriel Schell More articles by this author , Philipp BaumeisterPhilipp Baumeister More articles by this author , and Thomas HerrmannThomas Herrmann More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001982.04AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Aim of our study was to assess the outcomes of treatment of LUTS secondary to BPH with temporary implantable nitinol device (iTind; Medi-Tate Ltd, Israel), in patients with multiple comorbidities that put them at increased risk for TURP: acute urinary retention (AUR), anti-coagulation therapy (ACT) and under active surveillance for prostate cancer (AS). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 20 consecutive patients treated with the iTind System at a single center between May 2015 and October 2019. Follow-up was between 6 to 42 months, patients had an average age of 63.9 (47-81), average prostate volume of 57.45ml (21ml – 92ml), mean Charlson Comorbidity Index of 6.35. 12 patients were receiving anticoagulants, 11 patients were in retention (AUR), and 5 were under active surveillance for prostate cancer. iTind was implanted under light sedation and removed 5-7 days later in all patients. In patients with AUR an suprapubic cystostomy was placed additionally or patients stayed on Foley. Functional results, ability to void spontanously, IPSS, Qmax and PVR were assessed at follow-up points. RESULTS: All implantation procedures were successfully completed with no perioperative complications. Significant reductions in IPSS and increases in Qmax were observed among all patient groups. Sexual function was preserved in all patients. In the AUR group 11 out of 12 patients were able to void with significant reductions in PVR over time. Only 5 post-operative adverse events were reported in 3 patients. 2 patients reported pain and urgency during implantation period, which resolved upon device removal. 1 bleeding complication requiring transurethral coagulation was reported in one patient, a wheelchair bound double leg amputee on ACT. This was likely due to prolonged static sitting on the device. No other bleeding complications were observed in the ACT patient group or any other patient group. 4 patients underwent TURP (3 from the AUR group): 1 after 3.5yrs, 2 after 2.5yrs and 1 after 1yr of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: iTind demonstrated to be a safe and effective solution for patients reluctant or at high risk for undergoing a traditional surgical procedure as the result of multiple comorbidities. iTind does not seem to pose an additional bleeding risk for anti-coagulated patients and may provide an effective treatment for patients in complete urinary retention. Source of Funding: No source of funding © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e160-e161 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Gregor Kadner More articles by this author Karl Rohrmann More articles by this author Gabriel Schell More articles by this author Philipp Baumeister More articles by this author Thomas Herrmann More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...