The Prostate · 2001
Intra-prostatic vasculature studies: can they predict the outcome of transurethral microwave thermotherapy for the management of bladder outflow obstruction?
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Floratos D L, Sedelaar J P, Kortmann B B, Aarnink R G, Wijkstra H, Debruyne F M, de la Rosette J J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Blood perfusion regulates intraprostatic temperatures during transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT). We evaluated baseline intraprostatic vasculature, as a predictor of efficacy of TUMT.
METHODS: Twenty-two patients, with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) suggestive of bladder outflow obstruction, were treated with TUMT (Prostatron). At baseline, three-dimensional contrast-enhanced power-flow-Doppler prostate ultrasonography (3D-CE-PFD) was performed. Assuming that the percentage of perfused area (PPA) is a realistic measure of blood flow, it was used to quantify intraprostatic vasculature.
RESULTS: The median (range) age, prostate size, and energy delivered were 66 years (48-80), 47 cm(3) (30-121), 110 kJ (29-136), respectively. The response was 77% (5 failures). The median (range) PPA was 2.76% (0.7-11.3). No difference in PPA among good and poor responders was detected nor was any correlation between PPA and baseline parameters.
CONCLUSIONS: The baseline intraprostatic vascularization, documented by CE-PFD studies, has no predictive value for the efficacy of TUMT. It seems that "static" baseline blood flow does not reflect the "dynamic" thermoregulatory role of blood flow during treatment.
METHODS: Twenty-two patients, with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) suggestive of bladder outflow obstruction, were treated with TUMT (Prostatron). At baseline, three-dimensional contrast-enhanced power-flow-Doppler prostate ultrasonography (3D-CE-PFD) was performed. Assuming that the percentage of perfused area (PPA) is a realistic measure of blood flow, it was used to quantify intraprostatic vasculature.
RESULTS: The median (range) age, prostate size, and energy delivered were 66 years (48-80), 47 cm(3) (30-121), 110 kJ (29-136), respectively. The response was 77% (5 failures). The median (range) PPA was 2.76% (0.7-11.3). No difference in PPA among good and poor responders was detected nor was any correlation between PPA and baseline parameters.
CONCLUSIONS: The baseline intraprostatic vascularization, documented by CE-PFD studies, has no predictive value for the efficacy of TUMT. It seems that "static" baseline blood flow does not reflect the "dynamic" thermoregulatory role of blood flow during treatment.