EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,869,633
Abstracts:
29,686,251
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Transrectal and transurethral hyperthermia versus sham treatment in benign prostatic hyperplasia: A double-blind randomized multicentre clinical trial



Transrectal and transurethral hyperthermia versus sham treatment in benign prostatic hyperplasia: A double-blind randomized multicentre clinical trial



British Journal of Urology 76(5): 619-624



Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of hyperthermia for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), by either the transrectal or transurethral approach relative to sham treatment. Patients and methods: Two hundred patients from seven urological departments were randomized and treated in a single centre. Principal inclusion criteria were a peak flow rate (PFR) lt 15 mL/s and residual urine lt 3 00 mL/s. Comparisons were made between transurethral hyperthermia (TUH) and transurethral sham (TUS) and between transrectal hyperthermia (TRH) and transrectal sham (TRS) 12 months after treatment. Outcome was assessed by improvements in the Madsen score and PFR, and the incidence of side effects. Results: After 12 months, 145 patients were evaluated: 12 patients withdrew during treatment, 43 withdrew during follow-up and two were lost to follow-up. Withdrawals were mainly due to side-effects during treatment (17% in the TRH and 1.5% in the TUH group) and to a lack of improvement during follow-up (14% in the TUH group, 19% in the TUS, 15% in the TRH and 10.5% in the TRS group received other treatments for BPH). Complications during treatment consisted mainly of local pain, urethral bleeding, urethral pain and acute retention, and were five times more frequent in the TRH than the TUH group (34% versus 6%). There was no improvement in PFR after TUH and TRH (response lt 20%). Only TUH improved the Madsen score (TUH, +50% and TUS, +17%). Conclusion: Hyperthermia was not an effective treatment for BPH.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 009669821

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1995.tb07789.x



Related references

Transrectal and transurethral hyperthermia versus sham treatment in benign prostatic hyperplasia: a double-blind randomized multicentre clinical trial. The French BPH Hyperthermia. British Journal of Urology 76(5): 619-624, 1995

Transrectal and transurethral hyperthermia versus sham to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia A double blind, randomized, Multicentric study. Journal of Urology 151(5 SUPPL ): 418A, 1994

Transurethral microwave thermotherapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia Interim results of a multicenter randomized double blind sham controlled trial. Journal of Endourology 10(SUPPL 1): S110, 1996

A high-efficiency microwave thermoablation system for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: Results of a randomized, sham-controlled, prospective, double-blind, multicenter clinical trial. Urology 51(5): 731-742, 1998

A single blind, prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing transurethral needle ablation to transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Journal of Urology 155(5 SUPPL ): 403A, 1996

A single blind prospective randomized clinical United States trial comparing transurethral needle ablation to transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Journal of Endourology 10(SUPPL 1): S108, 1996

Transurethral needle ablation versus transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: 5-year results of a prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical trial. Journal of Urology 171(6 Pt 1): 2336-2340, 2004

WATER: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Aquablation® vs Transurethral Resection of the Prostate in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Journal of Urology 199(5): 1252-1261, 2018

Microwave thermotherapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia with the Dornier Urowave: Results of a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, sham-controlled trial. Urology 51(1): 19-28, 1998

High-energy transurethral microwave thermotherapy versus alpha-blocker treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia A prospective, randomized clinical trial. Journal of Urology 161(4 SUPPL ): 301, April, 1999

GreenLight HPS 120-W laser vaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized clinical trial with midterm follow-up. European Urology 58(3): 349-355, 2011

Benign prostatic hyperplasia: prostatic arterial embolization versus transurethral resection of the prostate--a prospective, randomized, and controlled clinical trial. Radiology 270(3): 920-928, 2014

Updated results of a randomized, double-blind, multicenter sham-controlled trial of microwave thermotherapy with the Dornier Urowave in patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. World Journal of Urology 16(2): 102-108, April, 1998

Comparison of Murraya koenigii- and Tribulus terrestris-based oral formulation versus tamsulosin in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia in men aged >50 years: a double-blind, double-dummy, randomized controlled trial. Clinical Therapeutics 33(12): 1943-1952, 2012

Comparison ofMurraya koenigii– andTribulus terrestris–Based Oral Formulation Versus Tamsulosin in the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia in Men Aged 5 Years A Double-Blind, Double-Dummy, Randomized Controlled Trial. 2011