Changes and Differences of Sexual Function in Patients with Benign Prostate Hyperplasia Following Transurethral Resection of Prostate and High Energy Transurethral Microwave Thermotherapy.
- Author:
Hee Tak YANG
1
;
Nak Gyeu CHOI
Author Information
1. Department of Urology, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Benign prostatic hyperplasia;
Microwave;
Transurethral resection of prostate;
Sexual function;
Thermotherapy
- MeSH:
Coitus;
Ejaculation;
Humans;
Hyperplasia*;
Hyperthermia, Induced;
Male;
Microwaves;
Prostate*;
Prostatic Hyperplasia;
Retrospective Studies;
Sexual Behavior;
Transurethral Resection of Prostate*
- From:Korean Journal of Urology
2001;42(9):961-966
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To evaluate the usefullness of high energy transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) for the treatment of BPH in young or sexually active men, this study was performed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The changes of sexual behaviors and sexual functions after TURP and high energy TUMT in 36 patients treated with TURP and 27 patients treated with high energy TUMT from January 1997 to December 2000 were analysed retrospectively. Assessment parameters were International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), uroflowmetry, residual urine and sexual functions such as morning erection, number of coitus, state of ejaculation and sexual satisfaction at 12 months from treatment. RESULTS: In both groups, the voiding function improved significantly after treatment, but TURP was much superior to TUMT in effectiveness. After 12 months of treatment, morning erection maintained 96.3% in TUMT group and 88.9% in TURP group. The number of coitus per month increased to 3.4 from 3.1 in TUMT group, and decreased to 2.2 from 2.8 in TURP group. Ejaculation preserved in 92.6% in TUMT group and 27.8% in TURP group. In sexual satisfaction, "Satisfied" increased to 51.9% from 40.7% in TUMT group, and decreased to 27.8% from 38.9% in TURP group. "Unsatisfied" changed little in TUMT group but changed from 22.2% to 47.2% in TURP group. In 28 patients with anejaculation, 78.6% considered no ejaculation had adverse effect and 21.4% considered it had no adverse effect on sexual satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Although both TURP and high energy TUMT significantly improved clinical outcome, the former was far superior to the latter in improving voiding symptoms caused by BPH. However, high energy TUMT was a better therapeutic option than TURP for patients who want to preserve sexual function. In particular, erection and ejaculation were preserved well with high energy TUMT while there was significant deterioration of these functions following TURP.
