Ashraf, Mahnoor

Abstract Purpose The temporarily implanted nitinol device (TIND) is a minimally invasive surgical technique (MIST) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) that promises fewer unwanted side effects compared with traditional bladder outlet procedures for small glands with high-riding bladder necks, including transurethral incision of the prostate (TUIP). This study sought to compare the effect of TIND vs. TUIP on ejaculatory function in sexually active males using the Male Sexual Health Questionnaire Ejaculatory Function Short Form (MSHQ-EjD-SF). Methods A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of all patients who underwent TIND at our institution between 1/1/2022 and 10/1/2024. Patients were excluded if they reported no postoperative ejaculations. Patients who underwent TUIP during the same period were compared. Age, prostate volume, PSA, and urinary parameters were collected. MSHQ-EjD-SF scores were collected for all patients. Continuous variables were compared using Wilcoxon Rank sum test and categorical variables using Fisher’s exact test. Results A total of 27 patients underwent TIND, of which 17 reported postoperative ejaculations and were compared with 17 patients who underwent TUIP during the same period with similar baseline age, prostate volume, and urinary parameters. Median MSHQ-EjD-SF score was higher after TIND compared with TUIP (15.0 (14.0, 15.0) vs. 13.0 (11.0, 13.0), p < 0.01), while bother score was lower (0.0 (0.0, 0.0) vs. 1.0 (0.0, 2.0), p = 0.02). Conclusions Patients experienced negligible effect on ejaculatory function after TIND compared with TUIP. This may be an effective bladder outlet procedure for patients who prioritize their postoperative ejaculatory function.

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening has played a critical role in reducing prostate cancer mortality but remains controversial due to concerns regarding overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and inconsistent screening guidelines. In 2012, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a grade D recommendation against PSA screening, leading to a national decline in PSA testing and prostate biopsy rates. This was followed by an increase in the incidence of metastatic prostate cancer at diagnosis. The USPSTF has since revised its recommendation to grade C, emphasizing shared decision-making for men aged 55 to 69 years. However, variability in screening recommendations across professional societies has resulted in clinical uncertainty, particularly for primary care physicians (PCPs), who frequently initiate PSA testing and urology referrals. This review provides an evidence-based overview of PSA screening tailored for the PCP. We performed a comprehensive literature review using Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, including systematic reviews published between January 2020 and April 2025, and current guidelines from the American Urological Association (AUA), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), European Association of Urology (EAU), and American Cancer Society (ACS). We summarize the evolving landscape of PSA screening and its integration with contemporary tools such as shared decision-making, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), and transperineally targeted biopsy. We advocate for initiating PSA screening between the ages of 45 and 49 in men with average or elevated risk, based on long-term evidence demonstrating the value of an early baseline PSA level and risk-stratified follow-up. This approach, coupled with improved diagnostic tools, can help PCPs navigate guideline variability and implement a rational, common-sense strategy to maximize early detection while minimizing harm.