Experience with the second generation Urolume prostatic stent

Bajoria, Sushil Kumar; Agarwal, S. S.; White, R I; Zafar, Feroz Amir; Williams, G.

doi:10.1111/j.1464-410x.1995.tb07343.x

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Stents that allow epithelial incorporation were designed to provide a permanent treatment for BPH. Despite the theoretical advantages of stent incorporation, rates of infection, encrustation and migration remained high [4]. Also, epithelial in‐growth can cause luminal narrowing to an extent that requires stent removal.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The thermo‐expandable metallic stent for managing benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

symptom scores. Secondary outcomes were urodynamic indices and minor complications. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of the studies and extracted data. Data were synthesized using narrative techniques. RESULTSIn all, 14 case series described the use of the Memokath stent in 839 men with BPH. All patients were at high operative risk. Most studies were of poor quality with an inadequate follow-up. Treatment failure rates were 0-48% but the duration of follow-up was often unclear. Five studies reported International Prostate Symptom Scores and found reductions of 11-19 points after stent insertion. All seven studies that reported on maximum urinary flow rates found that these increased, and the four that described residual urine volumes found that these decreased. Minor complications were inconsistently reported. CONCLUSIONSThe Memokath stent can provide an effective treatment for BPH in men at high operative risk; it also appears to be safe, but inadequate follow-up does not allow firm conclusions on stent durability. KEYWORDSbenign prostatic hyperplasia, stent, Memokath, review OBJECTIVESTo systematically review published reports of the safety, effectiveness and durability of a self-expanding metallic prostatic stent (Memokath®, Engineers & Doctors A/S Ltd., Denmark) in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) who are unfit for surgery. METHODSWe systematically searched the Medline and Embase databases from 1992. The reference lists of included studies and the bibliographies of review articles were also searched. We contacted the manufacturer of Memokath for additional information. The primary outcomes were treatment failure (stent removal, replacement or repositioning) and urological

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The thermo‐expandable metallic stent for managing benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…stents for transient or definitive therapy of prostatic obstruction [6,7]. A biodegradable spiral stent made Visual laser ablation of the prostate (VLAP) has become an alternative for the treatment of bladder outlet obstrucfrom self-reinforced polyglycolic acid (SR-PGA) was reported to be eÂective in the prevention of the posttion caused by BPH.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The biodegradable self‐reinforced poly‐dl‐lactic acid spiral stent compared with a suprapubic catheter in the treatment of post‐operative urinary retention after visual laser ablation of the prostate

Pétas

Talja

Tammela

et al. 1997

British Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To evaluate the eÃcacy and safety of a biodegdegradation time of the SR-PLA stent was 6 months; spiral fragments were found in the prostatic urethra radable self-reinforced poly-dl-lactic acid (SR-PLA) spiral stent compared with a suprapubic catheter after or the urinary bladder in 20 of the patients on cystoscopy. Improvements in patient-weighted sympvisual laser ablation of the prostate (VLAP) in a randomized study.tom score, mean Q max and PVR were significant in both groups at the 6 month follow-up. The infection Patients and methods The study comprised 45 patients (mean age 67.6 years, range 52-81) with bladder rate increased with the duration of suprapubic catheterization, from 25% (0-3 days) to 44% (>3 days). outlet obstruction caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia who received either a SR-PLA stent (22 patients)Stones were seen in two stented patients during the follow-up. and a suprapubic catheter, or a suprapubic catheter only (23 patients) after undergoing VLAP. The supraConclusion The SR-PLA spiral stent is safe and eÂective for the treatment of post-operative urinary retention pubic catheter was removed when voiding started. The response to VLAP and the eÂect of the stent or after laser therapy. The degradation time of the stent was unnecessarily long compared with the duration catheter were assessed using symptom scores, peak flow rate (Q max ), post-void residual volume (PVR), of prostatic swelling and tissue sloughing after laser therapy. The infection rate depends on the duration stent degradation, infection and outcome. Results Voiding started on the first or second day after of suprapubic catheterization. Keywords Biodegradable materials, laser therapy, prostreatment in 18 (median one day) of 22 patients with a spiral stent and in eight (median 6 days) of 23 tate, prostatic hyperplasia, stents patients with only the suprapubic catheter. The mean gators have reported good results with similar spiral

show abstract

“…Overall 10-49% of the stents placed for BPH had to be removed because of side effects [16], such as migration, voiding symptoms (especially urgency), perineal pain and encrustation [17,18]. Due to adhesion to the epithelium of the urethra, patients can develop voiding difficulties and pain after removal of the stent [17]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Later they were also used for bladder outflow obstruction, external detrusor sphincter dysynergia, urethral strictures, and prostate cancer [11,12,13,14,15,16]. Overall 10-49% of the stents placed for BPH had to be removed because of side effects [16], such as migration, voiding symptoms (especially urgency), perineal pain and encrustation [17,18]. Due to adhesion to the epithelium of the urethra, patients can develop voiding difficulties and pain after removal of the stent [17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Use of a Memokath Prostatic Stent for Obstructive Voiding Symptoms after Brachytherapy

Graaf¹,

Stijns²,

Scheepens³

et al. 2013

Current Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Brachytherapy may be complicated by serious obstructive voiding symptoms (OVS). Only conservative treatment options are available in the first 6 months after brachytherapy. We evaluated safety, efficacy and patient tolerance of the Memokath prostatic stent (MPS). Material and Methods: A MPS was placed in 10 patients with OVS after brachytherapy. Evaluation included uroflowmetry, international prostate symptom score (IPSS), prostate volume and urethrocystoscopy before and 3 months after placement of the stent. Results: Both the IPSS and uroflowmetry results significantly improved after stent insertion. The mean IPSS decreased from 29/5 to 11/1 and the mean Qmax from the uroflowmetry improved from 4.7 to 11.2 ml/s. The 5 patients who were catheter dependent voided spontaneously with a mean Qmax of 15 ml/s. Two stents migrated towards the bladder, and those patients needed a second stent which was placed without complications. Removal of the stent was easy to perform. Adverse effects were minor with perineal pain and irritative voiding symptoms occurring in 5 patients mainly in the first weeks after insertion. This did not negatively influence quality of life and all patients were more satisfied with the stent than without. Conclusions: The MPS provides a safe, effective, and completely reversible treatment for patients with OVS after brachytherapy and was well tolerated.

show abstract

Experience with the second generation Urolume prostatic stent

Cited by 8 publications

References 4 publications

The thermo‐expandable metallic stent for managing benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review

The thermo‐expandable metallic stent for managing benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review

The biodegradable self‐reinforced poly‐dl‐lactic acid spiral stent compared with a suprapubic catheter in the treatment of post‐operative urinary retention after visual laser ablation of the prostate

The Use of a Memokath Prostatic Stent for Obstructive Voiding Symptoms after Brachytherapy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About