International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 1998
Transrectal microwave hyperthermia for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia.
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.
Barbalias G A, Liatsikos E N
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A randomized study evaluated the efficacy of treatment with transrectal microwave hyperthermia (TMH) treatment in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
METHODS: Eighty BPH patients received TMH therapy and 20 patients were given a sham treatment. TMH was achieved using a prostathermer which includes a microwave transrectal heat generator, a cooling system and a transurethral sensor probe. Patients that received TMH had 5 to 6 sessions of 1 hour each where the prostate was heated to 42 degrees C to 43.5 degrees C. The sham treatment consisted of a single session where the temperature was maintained at 37 degrees C. All patients were evaluated at 3 and 12 months after treatment.
RESULTS: There was an improvement of subjective obstructive symptoms in 54 patients (75%) after TMH. An evaluation of urodynamic parameters revealed an increase in the maximum flow rate and a decrease of the detrusor opening pressure as well as the detrusor pressure at maximum flow in patients treated with TMH. A significant improvement in the amount of residual urine was seen in all TMH-treated patients (P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Although TMH cannot be considered a superior alternative to open surgical or transurethral excision of the prostate, it is a valid option for patients who have indwelling urethral catheters and for those at high surgical risk.
METHODS: Eighty BPH patients received TMH therapy and 20 patients were given a sham treatment. TMH was achieved using a prostathermer which includes a microwave transrectal heat generator, a cooling system and a transurethral sensor probe. Patients that received TMH had 5 to 6 sessions of 1 hour each where the prostate was heated to 42 degrees C to 43.5 degrees C. The sham treatment consisted of a single session where the temperature was maintained at 37 degrees C. All patients were evaluated at 3 and 12 months after treatment.
RESULTS: There was an improvement of subjective obstructive symptoms in 54 patients (75%) after TMH. An evaluation of urodynamic parameters revealed an increase in the maximum flow rate and a decrease of the detrusor opening pressure as well as the detrusor pressure at maximum flow in patients treated with TMH. A significant improvement in the amount of residual urine was seen in all TMH-treated patients (P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Although TMH cannot be considered a superior alternative to open surgical or transurethral excision of the prostate, it is a valid option for patients who have indwelling urethral catheters and for those at high surgical risk.