Zhonghua nan ke xue = National journal of andrology · 2011
[Combination therapy of biofeedback with electrical stimulation for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yang Zhong-Sheng, Zu Xiong-Bing, Qi Lin, Song Le-Ming, Liu Tai-Rong
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of the combination therapy of biofeedback with electrical stimulation on chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) through clinical trials.
METHODS: A total of 140 cases of diagnosed CP/CPPS were randomly divided into a control group (n = 20), a biofeedback group (BF, n = 40), an electrical stimulation group (ES, n = 40), and a biofeedback plus electrical stimulation group (BF + ES, n = 40). The latter three groups were treated by corresponding methods 5 times a week for 2 weeks, while the controls left untreated. After the treatment, all the patients were followed up for 30 days. The NIH chronic prostatitis symptom index (NIH-CPSI) scores and the results of uroflowmetry were obtained and compared before and after the treatment.
RESULTS: Compared with the control group, the scores on pain, urinary symptoms and quality of life (QOL) and the total NIH-CPSI scores were obviously decreased (P < 0.05), and the maximum flow rate (MFR) markedly improved (P < 0.05) in the BF, ES and BF + ES groups after the treatment, with significant differences between the former two and the latter one (P < 0.05), but not between the BF and ES groups (P > 0.05), nor in the control group before and after the treatment (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The combination therapy of biofeedback with electrical stimulation has a synergistic effect on CP/CPPS by alleviating pain and urinary symptoms, improving QOL and elevating MFR.
METHODS: A total of 140 cases of diagnosed CP/CPPS were randomly divided into a control group (n = 20), a biofeedback group (BF, n = 40), an electrical stimulation group (ES, n = 40), and a biofeedback plus electrical stimulation group (BF + ES, n = 40). The latter three groups were treated by corresponding methods 5 times a week for 2 weeks, while the controls left untreated. After the treatment, all the patients were followed up for 30 days. The NIH chronic prostatitis symptom index (NIH-CPSI) scores and the results of uroflowmetry were obtained and compared before and after the treatment.
RESULTS: Compared with the control group, the scores on pain, urinary symptoms and quality of life (QOL) and the total NIH-CPSI scores were obviously decreased (P < 0.05), and the maximum flow rate (MFR) markedly improved (P < 0.05) in the BF, ES and BF + ES groups after the treatment, with significant differences between the former two and the latter one (P < 0.05), but not between the BF and ES groups (P > 0.05), nor in the control group before and after the treatment (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The combination therapy of biofeedback with electrical stimulation has a synergistic effect on CP/CPPS by alleviating pain and urinary symptoms, improving QOL and elevating MFR.