Transperineal ultrasonic therapy for chronic prostatitis.
- Author:
Hai-Song LI
1
;
Bin WANG
;
Liang HAN
;
Chuan-Hang WANG
;
Zhong-Cheng XIN
Author Information
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH: Adult; Chronic Disease; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Perineum; surgery; Prostatitis; therapy; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonic Therapy; methods; Young Adult
- From: National Journal of Andrology 2013;19(1):49-53
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVETo evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of transperineal ultrasonic therapy for chronic prostatitis (CP) by analyzing the scores of NIH-CPSI and the results of prostate fluid routine examination.
METHODSWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, multi-centered trial on 96 CP patients that met the inclusion criteria. We divided the patients into groups A (trial) and B (control) of equal number, the former treated by transperineal ultrasound, while the latter with the same machine but no ultrasound waves, 10 min a time qd alt for 2 weeks. Then we evaluated the therapeutic effect and safety by comparing the scores of NIH-CP-SI and counts of white blood cells (WBC) and lecithin corpuscles (LC) in the prostate fluid between the two groups before and after treatment.
RESULTSThe total effectiveness rate was 70.83% in group A and 25% in group B (P < 0.01). The scores on prostate pain, urinary symptoms and quality of life as well as the total NIH-CPSI score were significantly improved in group A as compared with pretreatment (P < 0.05), and so were the prostate pain score and total NIH-CPSI score in group B (P < 0.05). Statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in the scores on prostate pain and urinary symptoms and total NIH-CPSI score after treatment (P < 0.05), but not in any of the NIH-CPSI scores before treatment (P > 0.05), nor were there any significant differences in the counts of WBCs and LC either between the two groups or within each group before and after treatment (P > 0.05). Two patients experienced adverse events in group A, and 1 in group B (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONTransperineal ultrasonic therapy is highly effective for CP, especially in relieving prostate pain. With its advantages of safety, easy operation and high acceptability, it deserves a wider clinical application.