Role of repeated prostatic massage in chronic prostatitis: a systematic review of the literature

Non-pharmacological interventions for treating chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome

BACKGROUND

Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a common disorder in which the two main clinical features are pelvic pain and lower urinary tract symptoms. There are currently many approaches for its management, using both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. The National Institute of Health - Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) score is a validated measure commonly used to measure CP/CPPS symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of non-pharmacological therapies for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS).

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases, trial registries, grey literature and conference proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status. The date of the latest search of all databases was August 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials. Inclusion criteria were men with a diagnosis of CP/CPPS. We included all available non-pharmacological interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies, performed statistical analyses and rated quality of evidence (QoE) according to the GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 38 unique studies with 3290 men with CP/CPPS across 23 comparisons.1. Acupuncture: (three studies, 204 participants) based on short-term follow-up, acupuncture probably leads to clinically meaningful reduction in prostatitis symptoms compared with sham procedure (mean difference (MD) in total NIH-CPSI score -5.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.32 to -4.26, high QoE). Acupuncture may result in little to no difference in adverse events (low QoE). Acupuncture may not reduce sexual dysfunction when compared with sham procedure (MD in the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) Scale -0.50, 95% CI -3.46 to 2.46, low QoE). Acupuncture may also lead to a clinically meaningful reduction in prostatitis symptoms compared with standard medical therapy (MD -6.05, 95% CI -7.87 to -4.24, two studies, 78 participants, low QoE). We found no information regarding quality of life, depression or anxiety.2. Lifestyle modifications: (one study, 100 participants) based on short-term follow-up, lifestyle modifications may be associated with a reduction in prostatitis symptoms compared with control (risk ratio (RR) for improvement in NIH-CPSI scores 3.90, 95% CI 2.20 to 6.92, very low QoE). We found no information regarding adverse events, sexual dysfunction, quality of life, depression or anxiety.3. Physical activity: (one study, 85 participants) based on short-term follow-up, a physical activity programme may cause a small reduction in prostatitis symptoms compared with control (NIH-CPSI score MD -2.50, 95% CI -4.69 to -0.31, low QoE). This programme may not reduce anxiety or depression (low QoE). We found no information regarding adverse events, sexual dysfunction or quality of life.4. Prostatic massage: (two studies, 115 participants) based on short-term follow-up, we are uncertain whether the prostatic massage reduces or increases prostatitis symptoms compared with control (very low QoE). We found no information regarding adverse events, sexual dysfunction, quality of life, depression or anxiety.5. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy: (three studies, 157 participants) based on short-term follow-up, extracorporeal shockwave therapy reduces prostatitis symptoms compared with control (NIH-CPSI score MD -6.18, 95% CI -7.46 to -4.89, high QoE). These results may not be sustained at medium-term follow-up (low QoE). This treatment may not be associated with a greater incidence of adverse events (low QoE). This treatment probably improves sexual dysfunction (MD in the IIEF Scale MD 3.34, 95% CI 2.68 to 4.00, one study, 60 participants, moderate QoE). We found no information regarding quality of life, depression or anxiety.6. Transrectal thermotherapy compared to medical therapy: (two studies, 237 participants) based on short-term follow-up, transrectal thermotherapy alone or in combination with medical therapy may decrease prostatitis symptoms slightly when compared with medical therapy alone (NIH-CPSI score MD -2.50, 95% CI -3.82 to -1.18, low QoE). One included study reported that participants may experience transient adverse events. We found no information regarding sexual dysfunction, quality of life, depression or anxiety.7. Other interventions: there is uncertainty about the effects of most of the other interventions included in this review. We found no information regarding psychological support or prostatic surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings of moderate quality evidence, this review found that some non-pharmacological interventions such as acupuncture and extracorporeal shockwave therapy are likely to result in a decrease in prostatitis symptoms and may not be associated with a greater incidence of adverse event. The QoE for most other comparisons was predominantly low. Future clinical trials should include a full report of their methods including adequate masking, consistent assessment of all patient-important outcomes including potential treatment-related adverse events and appropriate sample sizes.

Non-pharmacological interventions for treating chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome

BACKGROUND

Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a common disorder in which the two main clinical features are pelvic pain and lower urinary tract symptoms. There are currently many approaches for its management, using both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. The National Institute of Health - Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) score is a validated measure commonly used to measure CP/CPPS symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of non-pharmacological therapies for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS).

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases, trial registries, grey literature and conference proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status. The date of the latest search of all databases was August 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials. Inclusion criteria were men with a diagnosis of CP/CPPS. We included all available non-pharmacological interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies, performed statistical analyses and rated quality of evidence (QoE) according to the GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 38 unique studies with 3290 men with CP/CPPS across 23 comparisons.1. Acupuncture: (three studies, 204 participants) based on short-term follow-up, acupuncture reduces prostatitis symptoms in an appreciable number of participants compared with sham procedure (mean difference (MD) in total NIH-CPSI score -5.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.32 to -4.26, high QoE). Acupuncture likely results in little to no difference in adverse events (moderate QoE). It probably also decreases prostatitis symptoms compared with standard medical therapy in an appreciable number of participants (MD -6.05, 95% CI -7.87 to -4.24, two studies, 78 participants, moderate QoE).2. Circumcision: (one study, 713 participants) based on short-term follow-up, early circumcision probably decreases prostatitis symptoms slightly (NIH-CPSI score MD -3.00, 95% CI -3.82 to -2.18, moderate QoE) and may not be associated with a greater incidence of adverse events compared with control (a waiting list to be circumcised, low QoE).3. Electromagnetic chair: (two studies, 57 participants) based on short-term follow-up, we are uncertain of the effects of the use of an electromagnetic chair on prostatitis symptoms. It may be associated with a greater incidence of adverse events compared with sham procedure (low to very low QoE).4. Lifestyle modifications: (one study, 100 participants) based on short-term follow-up, lifestyle modifications may be associated with a greater improvement in prostatitis symptoms in an appreciable number of participants compared with control (risk ratio (RR) for improvement in NIH-CPSI scores 3.90, 95% CI 2.20 to 6.92, very low QoE). We found no information regarding adverse events.5. Physical activity: (one study, 85 participants) based on short-term follow-up, a physical activity programme may cause a small reduction in prostatitis symptoms compared with control (NIH-CPSI score MD -2.50, 95% CI -4.69 to -0.31, low QoE). We found no information regarding adverse events.6. Prostatic massage: (two studies, 115 participants) based on short-term follow-up, we are uncertain whether the prostatic massage reduces or increases prostatitis symptoms compared with control (very low QoE). We found no information regarding adverse events.7. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy: (three studies, 157 participants) based on short-term follow-up, extracorporeal shockwave therapy reduces prostatitis symptoms compared with control (NIH-CPSI score MD -6.18, 95% CI -7.46 to -4.89, high QoE). These results may not be sustained at medium-term follow-up (low QoE). This treatment may not be associated with a greater incidence of adverse events (low QoE).8. Transrectal thermotherapy compared to medical therapy: (two studies, 237 participants) based on short-term follow-up, transrectal thermotherapy alone or in combination with medical therapy may decrease prostatitis symptoms slightly when compared with medical therapy alone (NIH-CPSI score MD -2.50, 95% CI -3.82 to -1.18, low QoE). One included study reported that participants may experience transient adverse events.9. Other interventions: there is uncertainty about the effects of other interventions included in this review. We found no information regarding psychological support or prostatic surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Some of the interventions can decrease prostatitis symptoms in an appreciable number without a greater incidence of adverse events. The QoE was mostly low. Future clinical trials should include a full report of their methods including adequate masking, consistent assessment of all patient-important outcomes including potential treatment-related adverse events and appropriate sample sizes.

Diagnosis and treatment of chronic bacterial prostatitis and chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: a consensus guideline

Objectives

To improve awareness and recognition of chronic bacterial prostatitis (CBP) and chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) among non‐specialists and patients. To provide guidance to healthcare professionals treating patients with CBP and CP/CPPS, in both non‐specialist and specialist settings. To promote efficient referral of care between non‐specialists and specialists and the involvement of the multidisciplinary team (MDT).

Patients and Methods

The guideline population were men with CBP or CP/CPPS (persistent or recurrent symptoms and no other urogenital pathology for ≥3 of the previous 6 months). Consensus recommendations for the guidelines were based on a search to identify literature on the diagnosis and management of CBP and CP/CPPS (published between 1999 and February 2014). A Delphi panel process was used where high‐quality, published evidence was lacking.

Results

CBP and CP/CPPS can present with a wide range of clinical manifestations. The four main symptom domains are urogenital pain, lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS – voiding or storage symptoms), psychological issues and sexual dysfunction. Patients should be managed according to their individual symptom pattern. Options for first‐line treatment include antibiotics, α‐adrenergic antagonists (if voiding LUTS are present) and simple analgesics. Repeated use of antibiotics, such as quinolones, should be avoided if there is no obvious symptomatic benefit from infection control or cultures do not support an infectious cause. Early use of treatments targeting neuropathic pain and/or referral to specialist services should be considered for patients who do not respond to initial measures. An MDT approach (urologists, pain specialists, nurse specialists, specialist physiotherapists, general practitioners, cognitive behavioural therapists/psychologists, and sexual health specialists) is recommended. Patients should be fully informed about the possible underlying causes and treatment options, including an explanation of the chronic pain cycle.

Conclusion

Chronic prostatitis can present with a wide variety of signs and symptoms. Identification of individual symptom patterns and a symptom‐based treatment approach are recommended. Further research is required to evaluate management options for CBP and CP/CPPS.

The influence of ejaculation and abstinence on urinary flow rates

AIMS

To investigate the relationship between urinary flow rate and ejaculation in healthy young men.

METHODS

Young men were voluntarily enrolled in the study. All subjects were healthy, and sexually active, without neurological diseases, genital, or urethral surgery and they were not under any medications. Subjects were evaluated with ultrasound, uroflowmetry, and post-void residual urine (PVR) measurement. All subjects were followed for 22 days (T) with daily uroflowmetry, and were instructed to ejaculate only on specific days (0, 6 and 22) during the study period. On days 0, 6 and 22 uroflow measurements were performed between 2 and 6  hr following ejaculation. Uroflowmetry parameters before and after ejaculation and during abstinence were compared. Data presented a non-normal distribution and the non-parametric Wilcoxon-match-paired test and Kruskal-Wallis test were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

18 subjects (mean age 27.4 years) completed the study. A total of 414 uroflow charts were collected. A statistical significant increase in Qmax was observed after ejaculation (T-1 Qmax: 22.7  ±  5.4 vs. T0 Qmax: 25.7 ± 8, P = 0.002; T5 Qmax 23.2  ±  5.4 vs. T6 Qmax 25.4  ±  8, P = 0.031; T21 Qmax 21  ±  4.8 vs. T22 Qmax 24.5  ±  7.9, P = 0.031). Sexual abstinence resulted in a progressive, statistically significant decline in Qmax rates (T0 Qmax 25.7  ±  8 vs. T5 23.2 ± 5.4 P = 0.035; T6 Qmax 25.4  ±  8 vs. T21 Qmax 21  ±  4.8, P = 0.01). PVR did not change during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that in young healthy men micturition might be influenced by ejaculation. Our findings, if confirmed in larger series of patients with LUTS, should support that sexual status and activity could represent an important confounding factor in the interpretation of uroflowmetry traces.

Prostatitis and chronic pelvic pain syndrome in men

Primary care physicians can and should diagnose, classify, and treat patients presenting with acute and chronic prostatitis syndromes. Although the chronic syndromes are a challenge to manage, this review article provides the necessary background to allow primary care physicians to take on this task. Patients who are unfortunate to be diagnosed with a prostatitis syndrome have the best chance for successful therapy at initial presentation. Those patients will ultimately benefit from an informed and educated physician.