Adult urologyThree-year follow-up of feedback microwave thermotherapy versus TURP for clinical BPH: A prospective randomized multicenter study
Section snippets
Study design
This controlled multicenter study involved 10 centers in Scandinavia and the United States. A total of 154 patients were enrolled in the study from October 1998 to November 1999 and were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to PLFT versus TURP. Eight patients (five in the TURP and three in the PLFT group) were withdrawn before treatment, resulting in a total of 146 patients treated: 100 with PLFT and 46 with TURP. The ethical committees in each respective country approved the study protocol, and all
Results
The results from the 12-month follow-up visit, which was the primary endpoint of the study, have previously been reported for the available 133 patients (91 PLFT and 42 TURP) of the 146 enrolled in the study.9 Thereafter, the study was extended, and the patients were asked to come for yearly follow-up visits until 5 years after treatment. Eleven patients in the PLFT group and three in the TURP group wished to withdraw from the study. We present the 24-month results for the 118 (79 PLFT and 39
Comment
Although microwave thermotherapy systems without intraprostatic temperature monitoring have demonstrated statistically significant clinical outcomes, especially for subjective variables, these results have not been in the same range as those after TURP when comparing objective variables such as flow and detrusor pressure.4, 5, 6
The long-term results from studies comparing transurethral microwave thermotherapy with TURP are sparse. However, the available evaluations of different transurethral
Conclusions
This is the first prospective randomized multicenter study comparing PLFT with TURP. Three years after treatment, considerable improvements were found in all outcome parameters (IPSS, QOL, Qmax, postvoid residual urine volume, and prostate volume) for both study groups compared with baseline. The difference in the IPSS was statistically significant between the PLFT and TURP groups; however, no statistically significant differences were found in QOL and Qmax between the two treatment groups. The
References (20)
- et al.
Long-term follow-up of randomized transurethral microwave thermotherapy versus transurethral prostatic resection study
J Urol
(2001) - et al.
High energy thermotherapy versus transurethral resection in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: results of a prospective randomized study with 1 year of followup
J Urol
(1997) - et al.
Feedback microwave thermotherapy versus TURP for clinical BPH—a randomized controlled multicenter study
Urology
(2002) - et al.
Intraprostatic temperature monitoring during transurethral microwave thermotherapy for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia
J Urol
(1998) - et al.
Urodynamic findings in elderly males without prostatic complaints
Urology
(1984) - et al.
A randomized prospective study of laser ablation of the prostate vs transurethral resection of the prostate in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia
Urology
(1999) - et al.
Three-year follow up of laser prostatectomy versus transurethral resection of the prostate in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia
Urology
(2002) - et al.
Interstitial laser coagulation versus transurethral prostate resection for treating benign prostatic obstruction: a randomized trial with 2-year follow up
Urology
(2003) - et al.
Interventional therapy of benign prostatic hyperplasia
- et al.
Transurethral microwave thermotherapy: the gold standard for minimally invasive therapies for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia?
J Endourol
(2003)
Cited by (37)
Impact of Surgery for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia on Sexual Function: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Erectile Function and Ejaculatory Function
2022, European Urology FocusCitation Excerpt :IIEF and MSHQ-EjD (or their abbreviated versions) were the most common validated questionnaires administrated for this purpose (Table 1); more specifically, 101 (66.9%) studies used at least one of these tools [27,29,32,35–37,41,43–47,52,53,57–60,62,64–67,69,70,73,75,77–81,84–86,88,90,91,99,101–105,107,109,111–122,124,125,128–132,134–136,138,140–142,144,146–151,153,156–158,160–169,171–176,179,180]. A substantial number of articles (67, 44.4%) also used nonvalidated tools to evaluate postoperative erectile and/or ejaculatory function [28,30,34,35,38–40,48,49,51,54,55,57,58,61,71,72,74,75,77,82,83,87,92–95,100–102,105–109,111,116,119,122,126,128–130,134,136,139,141,143,145,147–154,156,157,159,163,165,168,170,171,177,178]. RE rates after the treatment were reported in 81 (53.6%) studies [30,33–36,39,40,42,46,48–50,53,55–58,61–63,65,68,70,72,75,76,78,82,83,85,87,89,91–103,106,108–110,113,116,118–120,124,126–131,134,136,138,139,143,145,150–159,163,165,168].
Transurethral Microwave Thermotherapy for Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia
2018, A Comprehensive Guide to the Prostate: Eastern and Western Approaches for Management of BPHComplications of minimally invasive procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia
2009, Complications of Urologic Surgery: Expert ConsultDiagnostic Criteria, Classification, and Nomenclature for Painful Bladder Syndrome/Interstitial Cystitis: An ESSIC Proposal
2008, European UrologyCitation Excerpt :The International Association for the Study of Pain; www.iasp-pain.org; [IASP]) definition of pain is: “An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage” [12]. Patients having microwave treatment for benign prostatic obstruction producing tissue damage at the bladder neck report the same sensation of pressure and discomfort in the bladder region [13–15]. The sensation is therefore by definition a pain sensation, but not described as such by the patient.
Australian surgical revision rate for benign prostatic obstruction
2023, BJU International
This study was sponsored by ProstaLund.
L. Wagrell, S. Schelin, T. R. Larson, and A. Mattiasson are paid consultants to the sponsor.