Related Experiment Videos
Tolerability of 3.5 versus 2.5 high-energy transurethral microwave thermotherapy
E A Francisca1, B B Kortmann, D L Floratos
1Department of Urology, University Hospital Nijmegen, The Netherlands. e.francisca@uro.azn.nl
Purpose:
To evaluate the tolerability of high-energy microwave thermotherapy in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) using two different treatment protocols (Prostasoft 2.5 and Prostasoft 3.5).
Materials And Methods:
Pain and discomfort during treatment was evaluated using a visual analog scale in 39 patients undergoing 60-min Prostasoft 2.5 treatment and 41 patients undergoing 30-min Prostasoft 3.5 treatment. The duration of transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) 3.5 treatment is significantly shorter than TUMT 2.5 treatment.
Results:
The pain level is significantly higher at the beginning of the Prostasoft 3.5 treatment compared to the Prostasoft 2.5 treatment. The reported pain level becomes similar 10 min into treatment, and remains similar to the end of the 3.5 treatment (at 30 min), when the pain level returns to baseline. The 2.5 protocol patients experience continuously increasing pain until the end of the treatment at 60 min. One minute following termination of treatment, the pain level drops back to the baseline level. No correlation between the level of pain and the baseline subjective or objective voiding parameters was observed. A correlation is also absent between the pain level, age and catheterization time. There only seems to be a weak correlation between the pain level and TUMT energy in the Prostasoft 2.5 treatment group.
Conclusions:
Both TUMT 2.5 and TUMT 3.5 are well tolerated. Even though patients undergoing TUMT 3.5 treatment experience more discomfort initially, the ultimate discomfort is similar to the TUMT 2.5 treatment, during the first 30 min. Shortening of treatment time significantly reduces the pain and discomfort experienced by the patient. Pretreatment parameters are not predictors of the pain level experienced.