Transurethral Microwave Thermotherapy for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Clinical Outcome After 4 Years

Abstract

Four years after transurethral microwave thermotherapy 23% of the initially treated group were satisfied with the result. Two-thirds had received supplementary BPH treatment. Preoperatively less obstructed patients and those with low initial irritative scores responded more favorably to transurethral microwave thermotherapy treatment.

Long–Term Outcome of Transrectal High– Intensity Focused Ultrasound Therapy for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

“…Comparable data were reported by Hallin and Berlin [11]who followed 187 patients for up to 4 years. Only 23% of the initially treated group were satisfied with the treatment outcome and two thirds had received supplementary BPH treatment [11]. Keijzers et al [12]reported on the 5–year follow–up data of 231 patients following low–energy TUMT.…”

“…Within 3 years, 31% of the patients had to undergo TURP and a further 23% received medical therapy [9]. Comparable data were reported by Hallin and Berlin [11]who followed 187 patients for up to 4 years. Only 23% of the initially treated group were satisfied with the treatment outcome and two thirds had received supplementary BPH treatment [11].…”

“…The long–time efficacy of transrectal HIFU has to be compared to competing thermoablation techniques, such as low– and high–energy transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT), transurethral needle ablation (TUNA) and interstitial laser coagulation [1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]. It needs to be emphasised that there are only few long–term data available with follow–ups comparable to our series.…”

“…Hallin and Berlin [11]identified that a pretreatment Qmax >10 ml/s and an irritative score of less than 5 were the only factors related to a favourable outcome after lowenergy TUMT. Prostate volume or the energy delivered to the prostate had no impact on the results [11].…”

“…Hallin and Berlin [11]identified that a pretreatment Qmax >10 ml/s and an irritative score of less than 5 were the only factors related to a favourable outcome after lowenergy TUMT. Prostate volume or the energy delivered to the prostate had no impact on the results [11]. Keijzers et al [12]observed that patients with lower Madsen score, lower residual volume, higher Qmax and older age responded better to low–energy TUMT.…”