Organ-On-a-Chip devices: Technology Progress and Challenges.

Organ-On-a-Chip (OOC) is a multichannel 3D-microfluidic cell-culture system included in a chip that stimulates the behavior of an organ. This technology relies on a multidisciplinary science benefiting from and helping in the progress of many fields including microbiology, microfluidics, biomaterials, and bioengineering. This review article summarizes the progress and achievements of various organ-on-chip technologies. It highlights the significant advantages of this technology in terms of reducing animal testing and providing personalized medical responses. In addition, this paper demonstrates how OOC is becoming a promising and powerful tool in pharmaceutical research to combat diseases. It predicts not only the effects of drugs on the target organs but also, using body-on-a-chip systems, it may provide insights into the side effects of the drug delivery on the other organs. Likewise, the models used for the construction of various organ-on-a-chip are investigated along with the design and materials of microfluidic devices. For each OOC, the integrated monitoring devices within the chips (e.g., sensors and biosensors) are discussed. We also discussed the evolution of FDA regulations and the potential in the near future for integrating OOCs in protocols approval that support and reduce the need and the failure rates in preclinical and clinical studies.

Characterization of the histological response to the Butterfly Prostatic Retraction Device in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

PURPOSE: The Butterfly Prostatic Retraction Device ("Butterfly") is a permanent nitinol implant for benign prostatic hyperplasia. This study examines the chronic response of prostate tissue to the Butterfly in histological specimens from patients in the Butterfly pilot clinical study. METHODS: Retrospective qualitative and semi-quantitative review of histological specimens of seven (7) patients who participated in the Butterfly pilot clinical study. Patients had at least 1-month implantation with the Butterfly prior to implant removal and TURP. Tissue samples were graded by two pathologists. RESULTS: Four out of six patients had IPSS decreased from baseline. All seven patients' samples had signs of chronic inflammation; one demonstrated acute inflammation and one demonstrated fibrosis. In three cases, intraglandular calcification was identified. There was no ischemic necrosis induced by the implant, and no encrustation, urethral edema, or cellular atypia was noted. CONCLUSION: The Butterfly demonstrated an overall favorable safety profile in terms of tissue response. This study demonstrates that there is no significant tissue reaction in the prostatic urethra due to presence of Butterfly device.

The Butterfly: A Novel Minimally Invasive Transurethral Retraction Device for Benign Hypertrophy of the Prostate.

INTRODUCTION: The Butterfly Prostatic Retraction device is a novel transurethral implant designed to dilate the prostatic urethra and treat lower urinary tract symptoms. We assessed its safety, efficacy and impact on urinary flow, ejaculation, and quality of life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included 64 men, treated for benign prostate hyperplasia for at least 1 year. All patients had Qmax≤ 13 mL/s and IPSS >12. Insertion of the device was performed via cystoscopy. Follow-up visits were performed at 2 weeks, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months and included uroflowmetry, IPSS, QoL, and sexual function questionnaires. Cystoscopy was performed on 3 and 12 months. RESULTS: Patients age was 50-83 years. 28 patients completed a 1-year follow-up with an intact device. Mean Qmax improved by 2 mL/s (25%), IPSS median drop was 10 points (40%), and QoL score was 1.5 points (38%). Sexually active patients reported antegrade ejaculation. On cystoscopy, gradual coverage of the devices with urethral mucosa was observed. In 1 patient, the device was repositioned. In 19 patients, the device was removed. 12 patients returned to alpha-blocker therapy and 7 patients underwent TURP. One patient developed a bulbar urethral stricture. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated feasibility and good tolerability of the Butterfly device.

Characterization of fecal microbiome in biopsy positive prostate cancer patients.

Objectives: To characterize the fecal microbiome in newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients. Patients and methods: Forty-nine consecutive patients who were referred for trans rectal prostate biopsy were tested. Patients who received antibiotics 3 months prior to the biopsy, patients with history of pelvic irradiation, prostate or colon cancer, inflammatory bowel disease and urinary tract infection were excluded. A rectal swab was obtained just prior to the biopsy, immediately placed in a sterile tube and kept in -80°C. Sequencing was performed for the 16S rRNA 515F + 806R gene fragment using the QIIME2 software. Analytic tests included Beta diversity (Weighted Unifrac, Unweighted Unifrac, Bray-Curtis), Alpha diversity (Faith, Evenness), Taxa bar plots and PCoA plots. Results: Forty-five samples were suitable for analysis with at least 8000 readings per sample. All patients were Caucasian. Twenty patients had prostate cancer and 25 had benign prostates (BPH). Among prostate cancer patients, Gleason Score was 3 + 3 in 11 patients, 3 + 4 in 5, 4 + 3 in 3, and 4 + 4 in 2. There was no statistical difference in demographic parameters between the groups. We identified over 1000 bacterial species, typical for the colonic microbiome. No significant differences in bacterial populations were found between prostate cancer versus benign prostate patients nor between age groups or between subgroups of Gleason or International Society of Uro-pathology (ISUP) scores. Conclusions: Although the microbiome has previously been shown to have an impact on the human microenvironment and cancer risk, we could not demonstrate a significant difference between the flora diversity of newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients and BPH patients. Further research into distinct bacterial metabolic pathways may reveal unique risk factors for prostate cancer.

Fluoroless Ureteroscopy: Experience in More Than 100 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Ureteroscopy is becoming the primary treatment for ureteral stones. As a standard of care, ureteroscopy is performed under the supervision of fluoroscopy. Recent advances in endourological technology make the need for fluoroscopy questionable. OBJECTIVES: To summarize our experience with a no-fluoroscopy technique for selected cases of ureteral stones. METHODS: Patients were considered suitable for fluoroless ureteroscopy if they had one or two non-impacted stones, in any location in the ureter, 5-10 mm size, with a normal contralateral renal unit and no urinary tract infection. Procedures were performed using rigid scopes, nitinol baskets/forceps for stone retrieval, and Holmium:YAG laser for lithotripsy. Stents were placed per surgeon's decision. RESULTS: During an 18-month period, 103 patients underwent fluoroless ureteroscopy. In 94 patients stones were removed successfully. In six, the stones were pushed to the kidney and treated successfully on a separate session by shock wave lithotripsy. In three patients no stone was found in the ureter. In five patients, miniature perforations in the ureter were noted and an indwelling double J stent was placed. CONCLUSIONS: Fluoroless ureteroscopy resulted in a high rate of success. We believe that in selected cases it can be used with minimal adverse events.