In this study our aim was to compare a first-generation intraprostatic stent (Prostakath) with a second-generation one (ProstaCoil) in patients with prostatic obstruction. The comparison was made in terms of ease of insertion, need for repositioning, migration, infection, stone formation and length of time in place. One hundred and seventeen patients with an age range of 52-94 years were included in this study. Forty-nine of the patients were treated with gold-plated stainless-steel-made stent (Prostakath) inserted under sonographic and 68 of the patients were treated with a nitinol-made stent (ProstaCoil) inserted under fluoroscopic guidance. Indications for stent insertion were similar for both groups. We found that immediate correct positioning was 83% for the Prostakath and 100% for the ProstaCoil. In 42% of the cases the Prostakath necessitated later repositioning because of partial migration and in 12% of the cases removal because of complete migration into the bladder or the anterior urethra. No migration was observed with the ProstaCoil. In 10% of these cases the Prostakath could not be inserted because of the instability of the stent. Due to its larger caliber the second-generation stent caused more transient irritative symptoms. No difference was found in stent-induced infections (10% for all stents). Encrustations were found in 40% of the patients at 1 year with the Prostakath, but in 30% with the ProstaCoil at 2 years. Maximal indwelling time was 12 months with the Prostakath and 36 months with the ProstaCoil. We conclude that the second-generation stent was more advantageous because of its larger caliber allowing catheterization and endoscopic examinations, more flexibility and much longer indwelling time.

Keywords:
Temporary prostatic stent, ProstaCoil, Prostakath
This content is only available via PDF.
© 1996 S. Karger AG, Basel
1996
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.