ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) with ProstaLund Feedback Treatment, using the CoreTherm device, with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) 5 years after treatment. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, multicenter study was conducted at 10 centers in the United States and Scandinavia. A total of 154 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia were randomized to TUMT or TURP in a 2:1 ratio. Patients were followed up at 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months after treatment. The intermediate results at 12 and 36 months have been previously reported. The treatment outcome at 5 years was evaluated with the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life question (QOL), peak urinary flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual urine volume, and prostate volume. The CoreTherm device differs from other microwave devices in that the intraprostatic temperature is constantly measured during the procedure to guide the treatment. RESULTS: Of the 154 patients, 66% completed the 60 months of follow-up. Statistically significant improvements in the TUMT and TURP groups were observed for IPSS, QOL, and Qmax at 60 months. The average values for the TUMT group were an IPSS of 7.4, QOL score of 1.1, and Qmax of 11.4 mL/s. The values for the TURP group were IPSS of 6.0, QOL score of 1.1, and Qmax of 13.6 mL/s. No statistically significant differences were found in any of these variables between the two treatment groups. In the TUMT group, 10% needed additional treatment versus 4.3% in the TURP group. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical outcome 5 years after TUMT using the CoreTherm device was comparable to the results seen after TURP. The safety of TUMT using the CoreTherm device compared favorably with that of TURP.
Subject(s)
Diathermy/methods , Prostatic Hyperplasia/therapy , Transurethral Resection of Prostate , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Prospective Studies , Time FactorsABSTRACT
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.
