Intraprostatic metal stents (Prostakath® and Urospiral®): More than 6 years' clinical experience with 110 patients

Zvi Braf, Juza Chen, Mario Sofer, Haim Matzkin*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


We reviewed the long-term results of two different intraprostatic metal stents. Patients (N = 110) with either benign prostatic hyperplasia or prostatic cancer were included in a prospective study and treated by the insertion of one of two intraprostatic stents (Prostakath® or Urospiral®). The mean follow-up was 53 (range 36-80) months. Subjective and objective symptoms and signs were evaluated at each follow-up visit. The different complications and overall success rates were compared for the two intraurethral spirals. When considering both patient satisfaction and device functionality, the overall success rate was 65%. Stent migration, incrustation, failure to void, and clinical infections were the most common complications. Of 41 cases of late complications, removal of the stents was required in 35 patients. No difference in the rate of late complications was noted for the two stents. Intraurethral stents are well-tolerated by patients. The relatively low cost of spirals and the fact that they may be left in situ for long periods renders them highly cost efficient. There is a need for continued close follow-up when the stent is left in situ for prolonged periods. There was no significant difference between the two metal stents despite their different coating.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)555-558
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Endourology
Issue number6
StatePublished - Dec 1996
Externally publishedYes


Dive into the research topics of 'Intraprostatic metal stents (Prostakath® and Urospiral®): More than 6 years' clinical experience with 110 patients'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this