Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a new prostatic stent (Trestle®, Boston Scientific Microvasive) for the treatment of BPH in patients with complete urinary retention and considered to be inoperable.Methods: The efficacy of the stent was evaluated in terms of return of micturition, level of patient satisfaction, uroflowmetry and residual urine. Any stents removed were examined by infrared spectrophotometry for the presence of crystalline encrustations.Results: From December 1997 to April 1999, 20 stents were inserted under local anaesthesia in 17 patients aged 54–90 years. Stents remained in place for an average of 3.5 months. Two migrations were reported. The mean maximum flow rate was 13.7 ml/s and the mean residual urine was 110 ml. The infrared spectrophotometry study revealed a glycoprotein film on stents in place for 1–6 months, accompanied by uric acid crystals on stents in place for 9 months.Conclusion: The Trestle prostatic stent is effective and constitutes a good alternative to surgical treatment in patients with a high operative risk.

Garraway WM, Collins GN, Lee RJ: High prevalence of benign prostatic hypertrophy in the community. Lancet 1991;338:469–471.
Mebust WK, Holtgrewe HL, Cockett AT, Peters PC: Transurethral prostatectomy: Immediate and postoperative complications. A cooperative study of 13 participating institutions evaluating 3885 patients. J Urol 1989;141: 243–247.
Birkhoff JD, Widerhorn AR, Hamilton RN, Zinsser HH: Natural history of benign prostatic hypertrophy and acute urinary retention. Urology 1976;2:48–52.
Roos NP, Wennberg JE, Malenka DJ, Fisher ES, McPherson K, Anderson TF, Cohen MM, Ramsey E: Mortality and reoperation after open and transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia. N Engl J Med 1989;27:1120–1124.
Oesterling JE, Kaplan SA, Epstein HB, Defalco AJ, Reddy PK, Chancellor MB: The North American experience with the urolume endoprosthesis as a treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia: Long–term results. Urology 1994; 44:353–362.
Harrison NW, De Souza JV: Prostatic stenting for outflow obstruction. Br J Urol 1990;65: 192–196.
Kirby RS, Heard SR, Miller P, Eardley I, Holmes S, Vale J: Use of the ASI titanium stent in the management of bladder outflow obstruction due to benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 1992;148:1195–1197.
McLoughlin J, Jager R, Abel PD, El Din A, Adam A, Williams G: The use of prostatic stents in patients with urinary retention who are unfit for surgery. An interim report. Br J Urol 1990;66:66–70.
Milroy EJ: Permanent prostate stents. J Endourol 1991;5:75–78.
Nissenkorn I: Prostatic stents. J Endourol 1991;5:79–82.
Fabian KM: Der intraprostatische ‘partielle Katheter’ (urologische Spirale). Urologe A 1980;19:236–238.
Fabian KM: Der intraprostatische ‘partielle Katheter’ (urologische Spirale). II. Urologe A 1984;23:229–233.
Nielsen KK, Klarskov P, Nordling J, Andersen JT, Holm HH: The intraprostatic spiral. New treatment for urinary retention. Br J Urol 1990; 65:500–503.
Williams G, Jager R, McLoughlin J, El Din A, Machan L, Gill K: Use of stents for treating obstruction of urinary outflow in patients unfit for surgery. Br Med J 1989;298:1429.
Mori K, Okamoto S, Akimoto M: Placement of the urethral stent made of shape memory alloy in management of benign prostatic hypertrophy for debilitated patients. J Urol 1995;154: 1065–1068.
Milroy EJ, Chapple CR, Eldin A, Wallsten H: A new treatment for urethral strictures: A permanently implanted urethral stent. J Urol 1989;141:1120–1122.
Milroy EJ, Cooper JE, Wallsten H, Chapple CR, Eldin A, Seddon AM: A new treatment for urethral strictures. Lancet 1988;25:1424– 1427.
Nissenkorn I: Experience with a new self–retaining intraurethral catheter in patients with urinary retention: A preliminary report. J Urol 1989;142:92–94.
Nissenkorn I, Richter S: A new self–retaining intraurethral device. An alternative to an indwelling catheter in patients with urinary retention due to infravesical obstruction. Br J Urol 1990;65:197–200.
Nordling J, Holm HH, Klarskov P, Nielson KK, Anderson JT: The intraprostatic spiral: A new device for insertion with the patient under local anaesthesia and with ultrasonic guidance with 3 months of follow–up. J Urol 1989;142: 756–758.
Petas A, Talja M, Tammela T, Taari K, Valimaa T, Tormala P: 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. Br J Urol 1997;80:439–443.
Thomas PJ, Britton JP, Harrison NW: The Prostakath stent: Four years’ experience. Br J Urol 1993;71:430–432.
Nieben OG, Nordling J, Nielsen KK, Kromann–Andersen B, Absalom MJ, Fowler C: A simple method for insertion of an intraprostatic coil. Br J Urol 1992;69:381–382.
Guazzoni G, Montorsi F, Coulange C, Milroy E, Pansadoro V, Rubben H, Sarramon J–P, Williams G: A modified prostatic UroLume Wallstent for healthy patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: A European multicentric study. Urology 1994;44:364–370.
Djavan B, Fakhari M, Shariat S, Ghawidel K, Marberger M: A novel intraurethral prostatic bridge catheter for prevention of temporary prostatic obstruction following high energy transurethral microwave thermotherapy in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 1999;161:144–151.
Devonec M, Dahlstrand: Temporary urethral stenting after high–energy transurethral microwave thermotherapy of the prostate. World J Urol 1998;16:120–123.
Anjum MI, Chari R, Shetty A, Keen M, Palmer JH: LOng–term clinical results and quality of life after insertion of a self–expanding flexible endourethral prosthesis. Br J Urol 1997;80: 885–888.
Guazzoni G, Bergamaschi F, Montorsi F, Consonni P, Galli L, Matozzo V: Prostatic Uro Lume Wallstent for benign prostatic hyperplasia patients at poor operative risk: Clinical, uroflowmetric and ultrasonographic patterns. J Urol 1993;150:1641–1647.
Parikh AM, Milroy EJ: Precautions and complications in the use of the urolume wallstent. Eur Urol 1995;27:1–7.
Chiou RK, Chen WS, Akbari A, Foley S, Lynch B, Taylor RJ: Long–term outcome of prostatic stent treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 1996;48:589–593.
Anjum MI, Palmer JH: A technique for removal of the urolume endourethral wallstent porsthesis. Br J Urol 1995;76:655–656.
Parikh AM, Milroy EJ: Points of technique. A new technique for removal of the urolume prostate stent. Br J Urol 1993;71:620–626.
Chapple CR, Milroy JG, Rickards D: Permanently implanted urethral stent for prostatic obstruction in the unfit patient. Preliminary report. Br J Urol 1990;66:58–65.
Holmes SA, Miller PD, Crocker PR, Kirby RS: Encrustation of intraprostatic stents – a comparative study. Br J Urol 1992;69:383–387.
Oesterling JE: Urologic applications of a permanent, epithelializing urethral endoprosthesis. Urology 1993;41(suppl 1):10–18.
Nissenkorn I, Slutzker D, Shalev M: Use of an intraurethral catheter instead of a Foley catheter after laser treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Eur Urol 1996;29:341–344.
Sassine AM, Schulman CC: Intraurethral catheter in high–risk patients with urinary retention: 3 years of experience. Eur Urol 1994;25:131–134.
Vincente J, Salvador J, Chechile V: Spiral urethral prosthesis as an alternative to surgery in high risk patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia: Prospective study. J Urol 1989;142: 1504–1508.
Nordling J, Ovesen H, Poulsen AL: The intraprostatic spiral: Clinical results in 150 consecutive patients. J Urol 1992;147:645–647.
Chiu AW, Lin AT, Lee YH, Chen MT, Chang LS: Stone incrustation: A relevant complication of the intraprostatic spiral. Eur Urol 1991; 19:304–307.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.