BJU international · 2008
Extracorporeal shock-wave therapy for treating chronic pelvic pain syndrome: a feasibility study and the first clinical results.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Zimmermann Reinhold, Cumpanas Alin, Hoeltl Lorenz, Janetschek Gunther, Stenzl Arnulf, Miclea Florin
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility and clinical outcome of extracorporeal shock-wave therapy (ESWT) for patients suffering from chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 34 patients who had had CPPS for >or=3 months, who were investigated in two subsequent studies. ESWT was administered using a perineal approach with two different standard ESWT devices with and without an ultrasonographic positioning system. The follow-up was at 1, 4 and 12 weeks after ESWT, to evaluate the effects on pain, quality of life and voiding. Imaging studies and changes in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were used to investigate the safety and side-effects of ESWT.
RESULTS: All patients completed the treatments and follow-up; there were statistically significant improvements in pain and quality of life after ESWT. Voiding conditions were temporarily improved but with no statistical significance. Perineal ESWT was easy and safe to administer with no anaesthesia on an outpatient basis. Side-effects could be excluded clinically, by imaging studies and by changes in PSA level.
CONCLUSION: Perineal ESWT must be considered as a promising new therapy for CPPS, in particular as it is easy to apply and causes no side-effects.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 34 patients who had had CPPS for >or=3 months, who were investigated in two subsequent studies. ESWT was administered using a perineal approach with two different standard ESWT devices with and without an ultrasonographic positioning system. The follow-up was at 1, 4 and 12 weeks after ESWT, to evaluate the effects on pain, quality of life and voiding. Imaging studies and changes in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were used to investigate the safety and side-effects of ESWT.
RESULTS: All patients completed the treatments and follow-up; there were statistically significant improvements in pain and quality of life after ESWT. Voiding conditions were temporarily improved but with no statistical significance. Perineal ESWT was easy and safe to administer with no anaesthesia on an outpatient basis. Side-effects could be excluded clinically, by imaging studies and by changes in PSA level.
CONCLUSION: Perineal ESWT must be considered as a promising new therapy for CPPS, in particular as it is easy to apply and causes no side-effects.