Advanced

Feedback microwave thermotherapy versus TURP for clinical BPH - A randomized controlled multicenter study

Wagrell, L; Schelin, S; Nordling, J; Richthoff, J; Magnusson, B; Schain, M; Larson, T; Boyle, E; Duelund, J and Kroyer, K, et al. (2002) In Urology 60(2). p.292-299
Abstract
Objectives. To compare the outcome of a microwave thermotherapy feedback system that is based on intraprostatic temperature measurement during treatment (ProstaLund Feedback Treatment or PLFT) with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for clinical benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in a randomized controlled multicenter study. The safety of the two methods was also investigated. Methods. The study was performed at 10 centers in Scandinavia and the United States. A total of 154 patients with clinical BPH were randomized to PLFT or TURP (ratio 2:1); 133 of them completed the study and were evaluated at the end of the study 12 months after treatment. Outcome measures included the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), urinary... (More)
Objectives. To compare the outcome of a microwave thermotherapy feedback system that is based on intraprostatic temperature measurement during treatment (ProstaLund Feedback Treatment or PLFT) with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for clinical benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in a randomized controlled multicenter study. The safety of the two methods was also investigated. Methods. The study was performed at 10 centers in Scandinavia and the United States. A total of 154 patients with clinical BPH were randomized to PLFT or TURP (ratio 2:1); 133 of them completed the study and were evaluated at the end of the study 12 months after treatment. Outcome measures included the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), urinary flow, detrusor pressure at maximal urinary flow (Qmax), prostate volume, and adverse events. Patients were seen at 3, 6, and 12 months. Responders were defined according to a combination of IPSS and Qmax: IPSS 7 or less, or a minimal 50% gain, and/or Qmax 15 mL/s or greater or a minimal 50% gain. Results. No significant differences in outcome at 12 months were found between PLFT and TURP for IPSS, Qmax, or detrusor pressure. The prostate volume measured with transrectal ultrasonography was reduced by 30% after PLFT and 51% after TURP. Serious adverse events related to the given treatment were reported in 2% after PLFT and in 17% after TURP. Mild and moderate adverse events were more common in the PLFT group. With the criteria mentioned above, 82% and 86% of the patients were characterized as responders after 12 months in the PLFT and TURP groups, respectively. The post-treatment catheter time was 3 days in the TURP group and 14 days in the PLFT group. Conclusions. The outcome of microwave thermotherapy with intraprostatic temperature monitoring was comparable with that seen after TURP in this study. From both a simplicity and safety point of view, PLFT appears to have an advantage. Taken together, our findings make us conclude that: within a 1-year perspective microwave thermotherapy with PLFT is an attractive alternative to TURP in the treatment of BPH. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
, et al. (More)
(Less)
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Urology
volume
60
issue
2
pages
292 - 299
publisher
Elsevier
external identifiers
  • wos:000177332000020
  • pmid:12137829
  • scopus:0036326134
ISSN
1527-9995
DOI
10.1016/S0090-4295(02)01740-5
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
cb17f0f4-4978-45e4-bf1d-6d41c3bae068 (old id 331192)
date added to LUP
2007-11-09 14:58:29
date last changed
2017-04-16 03:24:48
@article{cb17f0f4-4978-45e4-bf1d-6d41c3bae068,
  abstract     = {Objectives. To compare the outcome of a microwave thermotherapy feedback system that is based on intraprostatic temperature measurement during treatment (ProstaLund Feedback Treatment or PLFT) with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for clinical benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in a randomized controlled multicenter study. The safety of the two methods was also investigated. Methods. The study was performed at 10 centers in Scandinavia and the United States. A total of 154 patients with clinical BPH were randomized to PLFT or TURP (ratio 2:1); 133 of them completed the study and were evaluated at the end of the study 12 months after treatment. Outcome measures included the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), urinary flow, detrusor pressure at maximal urinary flow (Qmax), prostate volume, and adverse events. Patients were seen at 3, 6, and 12 months. Responders were defined according to a combination of IPSS and Qmax: IPSS 7 or less, or a minimal 50% gain, and/or Qmax 15 mL/s or greater or a minimal 50% gain. Results. No significant differences in outcome at 12 months were found between PLFT and TURP for IPSS, Qmax, or detrusor pressure. The prostate volume measured with transrectal ultrasonography was reduced by 30% after PLFT and 51% after TURP. Serious adverse events related to the given treatment were reported in 2% after PLFT and in 17% after TURP. Mild and moderate adverse events were more common in the PLFT group. With the criteria mentioned above, 82% and 86% of the patients were characterized as responders after 12 months in the PLFT and TURP groups, respectively. The post-treatment catheter time was 3 days in the TURP group and 14 days in the PLFT group. Conclusions. The outcome of microwave thermotherapy with intraprostatic temperature monitoring was comparable with that seen after TURP in this study. From both a simplicity and safety point of view, PLFT appears to have an advantage. Taken together, our findings make us conclude that: within a 1-year perspective microwave thermotherapy with PLFT is an attractive alternative to TURP in the treatment of BPH.},
  author       = {Wagrell, L and Schelin, S and Nordling, J and Richthoff, J and Magnusson, B and Schain, M and Larson, T and Boyle, E and Duelund, J and Kroyer, K and Ageheim, H and Mattiasson, Anders},
  issn         = {1527-9995},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {2},
  pages        = {292--299},
  publisher    = {Elsevier},
  series       = {Urology},
  title        = {Feedback microwave thermotherapy versus TURP for clinical BPH - A randomized controlled multicenter study},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(02)01740-5},
  volume       = {60},
  year         = {2002},
}