Skip to main content

iTIND — Temporary Implantable Nitinol Device for BPH

The iTIND (Olympus / Medi-Tate) is an FDA-cleared minimally invasive treatment for LUTS secondary to BPH that temporarily reshapes the prostatic urethra and bladder neck over 5–7 days through ischemic incisions, after which the device is removed — leaving no permanent implant.[1][2] It is mechanistically distinct from every other MIST: neither ablative, resective, drug-eluting, nor a permanent implant. For positioning vs other MISTs and TURP / HoLEP, see BPH & Male LUTS — chooser.

Mechanism of action​

The iTIND is a self-expanding nitinol (nickel–titanium alloy) device with three elongated struts. Once deployed at the bladder neck and prostatic urethra, sustained radial force at the strut–tissue interface causes ischemic necrosis and creates longitudinal incisions at 1, 5, and 11 o'clock.[2] Over 5–7 days these incisions remodel the urethral lumen; the device is then retrieved, leaving the widened channels but no foreign material.[3][4]

This "reshape-and-retrieve" mechanism is fundamentally different from:

  • Rezūm (convective thermal ablation of transition zone)
  • HoLEP / TURP / Aquablation (enucleation / resection / hydroablation)
  • UroLift (permanent suture-tack implants holding lateral lobes apart)
  • Optilume BPH (paclitaxel-coated balloon dilation)
  • PAE (selective embolization-induced infarction)

Device evolution​

  • First-generation TIND (Porpiglia 2015, n = 32): demonstrated feasibility — 45% IPSS reduction and 67% Qmax improvement at 12 months — but with a higher complication profile.[5]
  • Second-generation iTIND: redesigned geometry and delivery system; superior safety and efficacy. All subsequent pivotal and multicenter studies used iTIND, not first-generation TIND.[6][7]

Procedure​

Performed under light sedation or local anesthesia in ~ 5–10 minutes[5][6]:

  1. The compressed iTIND is delivered through a 22 F rigid cystoscope into the prostatic urethra and bladder neck.
  2. The device self-expands; struts are oriented at 1, 5, and 11 o'clock.
  3. Patient discharged same day — no indwelling Foley required during the in-situ period.
  4. Device retrieved 5–7 days later in an outpatient setting under topical anesthesia using a Foley-catheter retrieval technique.
  5. Patients return to daily life on average 4.3 days after retrieval.[8]

Patient selection​

Based on clinical-trial criteria and the AUA Guideline Amendment 2023[9]:

  • Men ≥ 50 years
  • IPSS ≥ 10
  • Qmax < 12 mL/s
  • Prostate volume 25–75 mL (MT-06 evaluated up to 120 mL[8])
  • No obstructing median lobe — the strongest predictor of iTIND failure (p < 0.001).[7][10]
  • PVR < 250 mL.[9]

The median-lobe exclusion is non-negotiable. A 2026 systematic review and expert-guidance paper on the median-lobe scenario explicitly states that iTIND should not be offered to patients with significant median-lobe obstruction.[10]

Clinical efficacy​

MT-02 — prospective multicenter single-arm​

n = 81 across European centers[6][7][11]:

TimepointIPSSQmax (mL/s)QoL
Baseline22.57.34.0
1 month11.7 (−48%)11.2 (+53%)—
12 months8.8 (−60%)14.7 (+100%)2.4
24 months8.5 (−59%)16.0 (+110%)1.8
36 months8.6 (−58%)15.2 (+115%)1.8

Improvements were stable from 12 to 36 months with no late complications and no additional treatment failures between 24 and 36 months.[11]

Pivotal RCT (NCT02506465) — Chughtai 2021​

n = 175 randomized 2:1 (iTIND vs sham) at 16 US / Canadian sites[1]:

  • Primary endpoint (3 mo): 78.6% iTIND vs 60% sham achieved ≥ 3-point IPSS reduction (p = 0.03).
  • 12 mo: IPSS −9.25 points (p < 0.0001 vs baseline); Qmax improvement +3.5 mL/s.
  • Adverse-event rate 38.1% iTIND vs 17.5% sham (mostly mild, transient).

MT-06 — prospective multicenter​

n = 70, broader inclusion (volume up to 120 mL)[8]:

  • IPSS and Qmax significantly improved at 6 months (p < 0.001).
  • No de novo erectile or ejaculatory dysfunction.

Safety profile​

Across all studies adverse events are mild and transient (Clavien-Dindo Grade I–II)[1][6][7][11]:

  • No Clavien-Dindo Grade > II complications in MT-02.
  • Common AEs: pelvic discomfort during the indwelling period (mean VAS 3.2 ± 1.6), hematuria, dysuria, UTI.
  • No late postoperative complications between 12 and 36 months.[11]

Sexual function preservation​

A defining attribute[1][8][11][12]:

  • No de novo erectile dysfunction in any study.
  • No de novo ejaculatory dysfunction in the RCT or MT-02 through 3 years.
  • A dedicated sexual-function analysis (Elterman 2023) showed no SHIM or total-IIEF differences between iTIND and sham at 3 months, or in the iTIND arm at 12 months. Men without baseline ED actually showed a +6.07-point IIEF improvement at 12 months (p = 0.034) along with improved ejaculatory function.[12]
  • A pooled MIST analysis (Franco 2026 Eur Urol) reported anejaculation rate ~ 1% — the lowest among MISTs evaluated.[13]
  • One narrative review reported a long-term retrograde-ejaculation rate of ~ 4%, not observed in the pivotal studies.[14]

Retreatment and durability​

This is the principal area of concern.

  • MT-02: of 51 patients followed to 24 months, 5 required surgical retreatment between 12–24 months — 4 of 5 had median lobes and were protocol deviators.[7]
  • At 12 months in MT-02: 2.4% required medical therapy and 2.4% required TURP.[6]
  • No additional treatment failures between 24 and 36 months.[11]
  • Italian Delphi consensus (Passarelli 2025) flagged iTIND alongside UroLift and TPLA as high-risk for retreatment — distinct from Rezūm and Aquablation, which were not.[15]
  • A 2025 device-profile review concluded iTIND has a higher retreatment rate than traditional surgery but remains a safe option in selected patients.[3]

Predictors of failure​

The only statistically significant baseline predictor of iTIND failure is the presence of an obstructive median lobe (p < 0.001).[7] In the failure analysis of all 81 MT-02 patients, 58.3% of failures (7 / 12) had median lobes. No other baseline parameter (age, prostate volume, IPSS, Qmax, PVR, PSA) predicted failure.

Comparison with other MISTs​

No head-to-head RCTs vs other MISTs; comparisons are indirect.

ProcedureIPSS Δ (12 mo)Qmax Δ (12 mo)Volume rangeMedian lobeImplant left?
iTIND−9.3 (RCT) / −13.7 (MT-02)+3.5 (RCT) / +14.7 (MT-02)25–75 mLExcludedNone
Rezūm−11.3+5.630–80 mLTreatableNone
UroLift−11.0+4.3< 80 mL (no median lobe)Excluded in original labelPermanent suture-tacks
Optilume BPH−11.5 to −12.4+10.320–80 mLExcluded in trialsNone
Aquablation−15.1+10.330–150 mLTreatableNone
PAE−11.6 to −14.5+6.1Any sizeTreatableEmbolic material
TURP−15.1+10.6up to ~ 80 mLTreatableNone

The Cornu 2023 EAU network meta-analysis judged the relative efficacy of iTIND to be less clear than PAE, PUL, and WVTT because of risk-of-bias concerns in the pivotal RCT.[16] In the Franco 2026 pooled MIST analysis, iTIND met proposed criteria for procedural success (≥ 50% IPSS Δ and Qmax improvement at 12 months) with the lowest anejaculation rate of any MIST.[13]

Where iTIND fits​

Distinguishing features:

  • No permanent implant (vs UroLift's permanent suture-tacks).
  • No tissue ablation, resection, or drug delivery.
  • Shortest procedure time (~ 5 min) and same-day discharge with no indwelling catheter during the in-situ period.
  • Strongest ejaculatory-preservation profile alongside UroLift; pooled anejaculation rate ~ 1%.[13]

Principal limitations:

  • Weakest Qmax improvement among MISTs in the pivotal RCT (+3.5 mL/s) — though single-arm cohorts report much larger gains. The RCT vs single-arm gap suggests selection effects and modest absolute deobstruction.
  • Strict median-lobe exclusion narrows the eligible population.
  • Limited to smaller / moderate prostates without median lobe.
  • Higher retreatment risk than Rezūm or Aquablation, per Delphi consensus and device-profile review.[3][15]

Guideline status​

The AUA 2023 Guideline Amendment lists iTIND (as TIPD — Temporarily Implanted Prostatic Device) under Expert Opinion: may be offered for prostate volume 25–75 mL with no obstructive median lobe.[9] The evidence level is lower than for Rezūm or UroLift, both of which carry conditional recommendations supported by stronger comparative data.

References​

1. Chughtai B, Elterman D, Shore N, et al. The iTind temporarily implanted nitinol device for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Urology. 2021;153:270-276. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2020.12.022

2. Franco JV, Jung JH, Imamura M, et al. Minimally invasive treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;7:CD013656. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD013656.pub2

3. Godard L, Trivedi H, Narang G, Forbes CM. Device profile of the iTind temporary implantable nitinol device for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2025;1-9. doi:10.1080/17434440.2025.2517173

4. Nguyen AV, Verma I, Ferreira R, et al. A scoping review of office-based prostatic stents: past, present, and future of true minimally invasive treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. World J Urol. 2023;41(11):2925-2932. doi:10.1007/s00345-023-04508-7

5. Porpiglia F, Fiori C, Bertolo R, et al. Temporary implantable nitinol device (TIND): a novel, minimally invasive treatment for relief of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) related to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH): feasibility, safety and functional results at 1 year of follow-up. BJU Int. 2015;116(2):278-287. doi:10.1111/bju.12982

6. Porpiglia F, Fiori C, Amparore D, et al. Second-generation of temporary implantable nitinol device for the relief of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia: results of a prospective, multicentre study at 1 year of follow-up. BJU Int. 2019;123(6):1061-1069. doi:10.1111/bju.14608

7. Kadner G, Valerio M, Giannakis I, et al. Second generation of temporary implantable nitinol device (iTind) in men with LUTS: 2-year results of the MT-02 study. World J Urol. 2020;38(12):3235-3244. doi:10.1007/s00345-020-03140-z

8. De Nunzio C, Cantiello F, Fiori C, et al. Urinary and sexual function after treatment with temporary implantable nitinol device (iTind) in men with LUTS: 6-month interim results of the MT-06 study. World J Urol. 2021;39(6):2037-2042. doi:10.1007/s00345-020-03418-2

9. Sandhu JS, Bixler BR, Dahm P, et al. Management of lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH): AUA Guideline Amendment 2023. J Urol. 2024;211(1):11-19. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000003698

10. Alghamlas A, Zekraoui O, Herrmann TRW, et al. The median lobe scenario. How to tackle this challenge best: systematic review and expert guidance. World J Urol. 2026;44(1):114. doi:10.1007/s00345-025-06172-5

11. Amparore D, Fiori C, Valerio M, et al. 3-year results following treatment with the second generation of the temporary implantable nitinol device in men with LUTS secondary to benign prostatic obstruction. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021;24(2):349-357. doi:10.1038/s41391-020-00281-5

12. Elterman D, Alshak MN, Martinez Diaz S, et al. An evaluation of sexual function in the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia in men treated with the temporarily implanted nitinol device. J Endourol. 2023;37(1):74-79. doi:10.1089/end.2022.0226

13. Franco A, Ditonno F, Manfredi C, et al. Systematic review and pooled analysis of functional and sexual outcomes of minimally invasive surgical treatments for benign prostatic obstruction. Eur Urol. 2026;89(4):318-331. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2025.09.004

14. Zhang X, Liang T, Dong Y, Gao H. Minimally invasive treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a narrative review. Medicine (Baltimore). 2026;105(12):e47951. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000047951

15. Passarelli F, Castellani D, Secco S, et al. Minimally invasive surgical techniques (MISTs) for benign prostatic hyperplasia: results from a Delphi consensus project to shed light on controversial topics. World J Urol. 2025;43(1):363. doi:10.1007/s00345-025-05727-w

16. Cornu JN, Zantek P, Burtt G, et al. Minimally invasive treatments for benign prostatic obstruction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2023;83(6):534-547. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2023.02.028