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 continously 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.

Keywords:
Prostatic hypertrophy, Thermotherapy, Tolerability, Morbidity
1.
Blute ML, Tomera KM, Hellerstein DK, et al: Transurethral microwave thermotherapy for management of benign prostatic hyperplasia: Results of the United States Prostatron cooperative study. J Urol 1993;150:1591–1596.
2.
te Slaa E, de la Rosette JJMCH: Lasers in the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction; past, present and future. Eur Urol 1996;30:1–10.
3.
Schulman CC, Zlotta AR: Transurethral needle ablation of the prostate: A new treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia using low–level radiofrequency energy. Cur Opin Urol 1995;5: 35–38.
4.
Schatzl G, Madersbarcher S, Lang T, Marberger M: The early postoperative morbidity of transurethral resection of the prostate and of 4 minimally invasive treatment alternatives. J Urol 1997;158:105–111.
5.
Carter SStC, Patel FRCS, Reddy P, Royer P, Ramsay JWA: Single–session transurethral microwave thermotherapy for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction. J Endourol 1991; 4:137–144.
6.
de Wildt MJAM, Hubregtse M, Ogden C, Carter SStC, Debruyne FMJ, de la Rosette JJMCH: A 12 month study of the placebo effect in TUMT. Br J Urol 1996;77:221–227.
7.
Hallin A, Berlin T: Transurethral microwave thermotherapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia: Clinical outcome after 4 years. J Urol 1998;159:459–464.
8.
Keijzers GBJM, Francisca EAE, d’Ancona FCH, Kiemeney LALM, Debruyne FMJ, de la Rosette JJMCH: Long–term results of lower energy TUMT. J Urol 1997;159:1966–1973.
9.
de la Rosette JJMCH, Tubaro A, Hofner K, Carter SStC: Transurethral microwave thermotherapy: past, present and future. Worl J Urol 1994;12:352–356.
10.
Devonec M, Ogden C, Perrin P, St–Clair CS: Clinical response to transurethral microwave thermotherapy is thermal dose dependent. Eur Urol 1993;23:267–274.
11.
Perrin P, Devonec M, Houdelette, et al: Single–session transurethral microwave thermotherapy: comparison of two therapeutic modes in a multicentre study; in Marberger M (ed): Application of Newer Forms of Therapeutic Energy in Urology. Oxford Isis Medical Media, 1995, pp 35–39.
12.
de la Rosette JJMCH, de Wildt MJAM, Hofner K, Carter SStC, Debruyne FMJ, Tubaro A: High energy thermotherapy in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: Results of the European benign prostatic hyperplasia study group. J Urol 1996;156:97–102.
13.
Francisca EAE, Keijzers GBJM, Floratos DL, Kiemeney LALM, Debruyne FMJ, de la Rosette JJMCH: High energy transurethral microwave thermotherapy: Long–term follow up results. Eur Urol 2000; in press.
14.
Tubaro A, Pace P, Tempesta A, Selvaggi F, Cabane V, Carter S: TUMT 3.5: Invasive thermotherapy analysis of a new program generation for microwave thermotherapy. J Urol 1999;161:301–301.
15.
de la Rosette JJMCH, Francisca EAE, Kortmann BBM, Floratos DL, Kiemeney LALM, Debruyne FMJ: Clinica efficacy of a new 30–minutes algorithm for transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT 3.5): Initial results. J Urol 1999; in press.
16.
McCormack HM, Horne DJ, Sheather S: Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: A critical review. Psychol Med 1988;18:1007– 1019.
17.
Price DD, McGrath PA, Rafii A, Buckingham B: The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain. Pain 1983;17:45–56.
18.
de la Rosette JJMCH, Debruyne FMJ: Transurethral thermotherapy; in Puppo P (ed): Contemporary BPH Management. Bologna, Monduzzi Editore, 1993, pp 77–86.
19.
d’Ancona FCH, Francisca EAE, Hendriks JCM, Debruyne FMJ, de la Rosette JJMCH: The predictive value of baseline parameters in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia using high energy transurethral microwave thermotherapy. Br J Urol 1998;82:808–813.
20.
Tomera KM, Tomera FM: The Tomera technique: High energy transurethral thermotherapy with low energy morbidity. Alaska Med 1998;40:3–5.
2000
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.