Purpose: Previous studies have indicated that high-energy transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) requires intravenous (IV) sedation and/or narcotics for patient tolerance. This study was performed to determine tolerability, patient acceptance, and efficacy of TUMT using both low- and high-energy protocols in a single United States university setting. Materials and Methods: Between August 11, 1997 and October 28, 1999, 210 men (mean age 64.9 ± 9.1 years) presenting with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) received treatment with a Prostatron TUMT using either the low-energy Prostasoft 2.0™ or high-energy Prostasoft 2.5™ software. Each patient had digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen level consistent with BPH, American Urological Association symptom score ≥15, and Qmax <15 mL/s. Each patient received TUMT with only ibuprofen 400 mg by mouth (PO), lorazepam 1.0 mg PO, and ketorolac 30 mg intramuscularly (IM) prior to TUMT. A few patients who were concerned about limited pain threshold received oxycodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg PO. Of 210 patients treated, 12-month efficacy data were available for analysis in 80 patients. Results: Forty-eight men (mean age 65 ± 9.2 years) received low-energy 2.0 software TUMT, and 32 men (mean age 65.1 ± 9.2 years) were treated with high-energy 2.5 software. Mean prostatic volume was 44.3 ± 23.9 mL and 60.7 ± 26.4 mL for the 2.0 and 2.5 groups, respectively. Mean energy delivered was 108.8 ± 50.4 kJ and 173.1 ± 41.1 kJ for the 2.0 and 2.5 treatment groups, respectively. International Prostate Symptom Score decreased from 23 pre-TUMT to 8 post-TUMT and 21 pre-TUMT to 10 post-TUMT at 12 months in the 2.0 and 2.5 groups, respectively. Mean peak flow rate improved 31.9% from 9.1 mL/s pre-TUMT to 12.0 mL/s post-TUMT and 45.8% from 9.6 mL/s pre-TUMT to 14.0 mL/s post-TUMT at 12 months in the 2.0 and 2.5 groups, respectively. All but two patients tolerated treatment without IV sedation. One patient experienced intolerable rectal spasm, and treatment was terminated in another patient because of poorly controlled hypertension. Conclusions: Patients can be treated safely with TUMT using either low or high energy, with almost universal patient tolerance and without the need for IV sedation or narcotics, if they premedicated effectively using a PO/IM regimen. Patients experience significant relief of symptoms whether low- or high-energy TUMT is used; however, high-energy TUMT improves flow rate to a greater extent than does low-energy therapy.
|Number of pages||6|
|Journal||Techniques in Urology|
|State||Published - 2000|
ASJC Scopus subject areas