Transurethral microwave thermotherapy for the treatment of prostatitis

Nonablative transurethral Erbium:YAG laser treatment for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: A prospective comparative study

Aims

This prospective study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between the use of Erbium:YAG (Er:YAG) laser in a nonablative mode, to the use of the pharmacological treatment of oral tadalafil for the treatment of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS).

Methods

The laser group received two sessions of Erbium:YAG laser, administered intraurethrally in a long, nonablative train of long pulses (SMOOTH™ mode), applied at the level of the male prostatic urethra. Tadalafil group received oral tadalafil at a dose of 5 mg/day, consecutively for 2 months. Effectiveness was assessed using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) questionnaire, VAS (visual analogue scale) pain score, and maximum urethral flow at follow‐up visits up to 12 months after initiating treatment. Adverse effects were recorded after each treatment and follow‐up sessions.

Results

The results show a significant decrease in the IPSS score in both groups up to the 12‐month follow‐up. The increase in Q‐max was evident up to 3‐months follow‐up in the tadalafil group and up to 6 months in the laser group. The decrease in the VAS pain score was also significant in both treatment groups, lasting up to 3 months in the tadalafil group and up to 6 months in the laser group.

Conclusions

The nonablative Er:YAG SMOOTH™ laser seems to be a promising treatment for this widely occurring condition. More studies are needed to confirm its safety and efficacy.

[Classification, etiology, diagnosis and treatment of prostatitis. Other types of prostatitis. Acute and chronic prostatitis]

Prostatitis is a highly prevalent nosologic entity and hence has an enormous financial impact on health systems as well as negative repercussions on patients' quality of life. The symptoms are ambiguous, diagnostic methods are controversial and treatments are long and produce inconsistent results; consequently, although not life-threatening, prostatitis has become one of those diseases that is difficult both for the patient and for the physician who attempts to help, sometimes without success. Although an infectious etiology is accepted in most cases, there are major controversies about both the diagnostic methods used and their interpretation. Recently the National Institutes of Health in the USA has proposed a new classification of this disease to substitute that used for the last twenty years. This new classification may provide a more effective approach to the diagnosis and treatment of this insidious disease.

Transurethral microwave thermotherapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia

Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) remains the gold standard for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). In general, while this procedure is safe, patients require a spinal, epidural, or general anesthesia and often several days of hospital stay; the potential morbidity and mortality limits the use of TURP in high-risk patients. Pharmacotherapy has been recommended as a first-line therapy for all patients with mild to moderate symptoms. Patients are often times enthusiastic if they are offered a one-time method to treat lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to BPH, provided that the method offers reduced risk and allows an efficacy equal to that of medical therapy. One such method is transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT). TUMT involves the insertion of a specially designed urinary catheter with a microwave antenna, which heats the prostate and destroys hyperplastic prostate tissue. TUMT allows the avoidance of general or regional anesthesia, and results in minimal blood loss and fluid absorption. In this review, the authors discussed the current indications and outcome of TUMT, including the history of the procedure, the mechanism of action, the indications for TUMT, the pre-operative considerations, the patient selection, the results in terms of efficacy, by comparing TUMT vs. Sham, TUMT vs. Alpha-blocker and TUMT vs. TURP. Finally, the complications are presented, as well as other uses and future directions of the procedure. The authors concluded that TUMT is a safe and effective minimally invasive alternative to treatment of symptomatic BPH.

Heat therapy in the treatment of prostatitis

There is a dearth of literature on heat therapy and prostatitis. The therapies used different energy sources, including interstitial heat and microwaves, and were delivered both transrectally and transurethrally. Most data precede our present system of nomenclature and therefore are difficult to compare, even with the literature of their day. Validated instruments were rarely used to determine efficacy, and most outcome measures were subjective. We will need well-designed prospective clinical trials using objective outcome measures and validated symptom indexes. Until then the use of heat therapy for prostatitis should be considered experimental.

Transurethral needle ablation for the treatment of chronic pelvic pain syndrome (category III prostatitis): a randomized, sham-controlled study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effectiveness and durability of transurethral needle ablation (TUNA) in the treatment of symptoms of chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS) in a randomized, single-blind, sham-controlled study.

METHODS

Thirty-three patients with moderate-to-severe symptoms of CPPS were randomized to either TUNA (n = 25) or urethrocystoscopy as a sham treatment (n = 8). The response to therapy was evaluated 3, 6, and 12 months after treatment using the Prostatitis Symptom Severity Index (PSSI), the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), a visual analogue scale, and prostate volume, prostate-specific antigen, urinary flow, and residual urine volume measurements.

RESULTS

The PSSI decreased in both groups (TUNA group, P <0.001; sham group, P not significant), but no statistically significant difference was detected between them. Similarly, the IPSS decreased in the two groups (TUNA group, P = 0.002; sham group, P = 0.05), but no difference was found between those treated with TUNA and those who underwent sham treatment. Also the quality of life (IPSS-8) was significantly better at 12 months in both groups, but no difference was detected between them. Changes in pain score (visual analogue scale) were not statistically significant. Peak urinary flow rate, residual urine volume, prostate-specific antigen, and prostate volume were not altered in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of TUNA in CPPS is comparable to sham treatment, and so cannot be recommended as routine treatment of CPPS.