[Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome. Influence of osteopathic treatment - a randomized controlled study]. / Chronische Prostatitis/chronisches Beckenschmerzsyndrom. Einfluss osteopathischer Behandlungen - eine randomisiert kontrollierte Studie.

BACKGROUND: Prostatitis is the most common urological disease in males under [corrected] the age of 50 years old. As bacteria are detected in only <5% of cases the disease can mostly be classified as chronic nonbacterial prostatitis. The symptoms of this problem complex, often described as chronic prostatitis and chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP-CPPS), seem to be multifactorial so that an improvement can only rarely be achieved with conventional forms of therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The aim of this study was to investigate whether osteopathic treatment can influence the symptoms of CP-CPPS (randomized controlled study, 5 sessions, follow-up after 6 weeks and 1.5 years without treatment). The study was carried out in a practice for osteopathy. Patients were recruited by referral from urologists, newspaper articles and lectures on the topic. A total of 35 males with medically diagnosed CP-CPPS aged 29-70 years old took part in the study. Of the patients 20 were allocated to the treatment group and 15 to the placebo group whereby 2 patients had to retire from the study prematurely. Patients in the treatment group received 5 osteopathic treatment sessions separated by 1 week at the beginning and by up to 3 weeks at the end (total period 8 weeks). The osteopathic dysfunctions of the patients were treated according to the principles of osteopathy. The placebo treatment in the control group consisted of a training program with simple gymnastic and physiotherapeutic exercises. Improvements of the complaints by urination (LUTS), chronic pelvic pain (CPPS) and quality of life (QOL) were measured using the questionnaires for international prostate symptom score (IPSS), the National Institutes of Health chronic prostatitis symptom index (NIH-CPSI) and the quality of life index (QOL). RESULTS: Comparison of the results from the osteopathy and placebo groups revealed statistically significant differences in favor of the osteopathy group (p<0.0005). During the study period the average IPSS in the osteopathy group improved from 19.7 to 10.3 points (48%, p<0.0005), the NIH from 26.0 to 12.0 (54%; p<0.0005) and the QOL from 4.4 to 1.9 points (58%, p<0.0005). In contrast the corresponding values in the placebo group remained relatively constant. At the follow-up 6 weeks after the last session the improvements in the osteopathy group were found to be stabile and remained so at least up to the second follow-up after 1.5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The positive results of this study indicate that osteopathic treatment can be considered a genuine alternative to the conventional treatment of CP-CPPS and a closer cooperation between urologists/internists and osteopaths would be desirable. Further studies with larger numbers of patients should be carried out to substantiate these results.

[Evaluation and critical review published in the European literature on osteopathic studies in the clinical field and in the area of fundamental research]. / Evaluierung und kritische Bewertung von in der europäischen Literatur veröffentlichten, osteopathischen Studien im klinischen Bereich und im Bereich der Grundlagenforschung.

OBJECTIVE: Identification of studies of osteopathic treatment in defined countries. Evaluation of methods and results of the studies and assessment of the available evidence concerning the effectiveness of osteopathy. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. Assessment of the quality of the studies, with respect to the osteopathic concept and current methodological criteria according to predefined keys. DATA SOURCES: Clinical trials and fundamental studies originating from Germany, England, Austria, The Netherlands, Scandinavia +/- published or unpublished. RESULTS: Out of a total of 30 studies retrieved, 9 reached the predetermined minimum number of points to be rated into quality categories. In 2 of these studies the osteopathic treatment was more effective than the control intervention (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: No definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of osteopathy can be drawn so far because of the low number of evaluated studies. It seems necessary to scrutinize the relevance of osteopathy through further methodologically adequate studies. Additionally, criteria for evaluation are proposed which correspond to the highest international standards in order to ensure a valid (and commonly accepted) evaluation of the osteopathic literature.