Urology · 2006
Feedback microwave thermotherapy versus TURP/prostate enucleation surgery in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and persistent urinary retention: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Schelin Sonny, Geertsen Ulla, Walter Steen, Spångberg Anders, Duelund-Jacobsen Jens, Krøyer Kurt, Hjertberg Hans, Vatne Vendil, Richthoff Jonas, Nordling Jørgen
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical efficacy of ProstaLund Feedback Treatment (PLFT) using the CoreTherm device versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and prostate enucleation surgery.
METHODS: We performed a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study of 120 patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia and persistent urinary retention requiring an indwelling catheter or clean intermittent catheterization. The primary efficacy variables were success in catheter removal and symptom improvement.
RESULTS: Of the 120 patients, 79% and 88% were catheter free after PLFT and surgery, respectively. The bother score (quality-of-life question) decreased from 4.6 in both groups before treatment to 1.4 in the PLFT group and 0.8 in the surgery group at 6 months of follow-up. The peak urinary flow rate was 13.4 mL/s after PLFT and 18.0 mL/s after surgery. The mean catheterization time was 34 days in the PLFT group and 5 days in the surgery group.
CONCLUSIONS: PLFT is an effective alternative to surgical treatment in this group of catheterized patients. The risk of severe complications is reduced using PLFT, and an excellent treatment option can thereby be offered to this high-risk patient group who earlier could be treated only with lifelong catheterization.
METHODS: We performed a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study of 120 patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia and persistent urinary retention requiring an indwelling catheter or clean intermittent catheterization. The primary efficacy variables were success in catheter removal and symptom improvement.
RESULTS: Of the 120 patients, 79% and 88% were catheter free after PLFT and surgery, respectively. The bother score (quality-of-life question) decreased from 4.6 in both groups before treatment to 1.4 in the PLFT group and 0.8 in the surgery group at 6 months of follow-up. The peak urinary flow rate was 13.4 mL/s after PLFT and 18.0 mL/s after surgery. The mean catheterization time was 34 days in the PLFT group and 5 days in the surgery group.
CONCLUSIONS: PLFT is an effective alternative to surgical treatment in this group of catheterized patients. The risk of severe complications is reduced using PLFT, and an excellent treatment option can thereby be offered to this high-risk patient group who earlier could be treated only with lifelong catheterization.