Three-Year Followup of Patients Treated with lower Energy Microwave Thermotherapy

Abstract

Purpose: A retrospective study was done to investigate the long-term outcome of patients treated with lower energy transurethral microwave thermotherapy. Materials and Methods: A total of 305 patients with lower urinary tract symptoms and benign prostatic hypertrophy underwent transurethral microwave thermotherapy according to a similar protocol at 2 centers. Results: After 3 years of followup 133 patients who had undergone transurethral microwave thermotherapy alone were available for study. During this observation period significant symptomatic improvement from baseline and an improved maximum flow rate of 2.6 ml. per second were noted. Of the patients 125 underwent invasive or medical treatment. Conclusions: After 3 years of followup lower energy transurethral microwave thermotherapy showed significant and durable improvements in baseline parameters in 52% of the patients.

Transurethral interstitial laser coagulation of the prostate and transurethral microwave thermotherapy vs transurethral resection or incision of the prostate: results of a randomized, controlled study in patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia

“…Several studies using the older software (Prostasoft v2.0) reported acceptable symptomatic effect, better than sham treatment [12], and comparable with TURP [13]. However, with this software the ability of TUMT to reduce infravesical obstruction is clearly limited, and some studies have shown limited durability of the symptomatic response in a high proportion of patients, as re-treatment rates within 2-3 years of 43-48% have been reported [14,15]. The newer software, Prostasoft v2.5, with a higher maximum effect and increased rectal threshold temperatures, has improved the effect on BOO but remains slightly inferior to TURP [16].…”

Microwave thermotherapy: a long‐term follow‐up of 67 patients from a single centre

“…Many patients (34%) were lost to follow‐up, making interpretation difficult, but 40% of the total number of patients (70% of those for whom follow‐up information was available) were classified as treatment failures at 3 years. In a study with a 3‐year follow‐up after treatment with the lower energy Prostatron thermotherapy device, significant and durable improvements were reported in 52% of patients [ 18].…”

“…Numerous sham‐controlled studies of TUMT have now been performed [ 4–10]; these have supported the use of TUMT in treating BPH, with one exception [ 10]; indeed De Wildt et al stated that ‘a beneficial effect of heating at thermotherapy temperatures is conclusive and that further sham studies would be unethical’ [ 8]. The follow‐up in these and other studies [ 11–14] has been for up to 1 year, but there are few studies reporting the longer term effects of TUMT [ 15–18], and none of these have followed patients for more than 3 years. Thus, the present study reports the long‐term follow‐up of patients who underwent TUMT for BPH over 4 years ago.…”

Nonablative minimally invasive thermal therapies in the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia

“…After a period of low energy treatments [12][13][14][15] nowadays intraprostatic temperatures are reached of 75-808C. Several treatment systems have been developed, each with its own specifications and marketing strategy: Prostalund Feedback Treatment (PLFT) (Lund Instrument, Lund, Sweden), Urowave (Dornier Medical Systems, Kennesaw, Georgia, USA), Thermex II (Direx Medical Systems, Petach Tikva, Israel), Proscare (Bruker Spectrospin, Wissembourg, France), Targis microwave system (second generation) and Cooled ThermoCath (CTC; third generation) (Urologix, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA), Prostatron (EDAP Technomed Medical Systems, Vaulxen-Velin, France), TherMatrx TMx-2000 (TherMatrx, Inc., Bannockburn, Illinois, USA).…”