Perlmutter A P, Verdi J, Watson G M
Institute of Urology, London, England.
J Urol. 1993 Nov;150(5 Pt 2):1603-6. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35854-8.
A nonrandomized pilot study was done of 139 patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia treated with 3 prostatic heating devices. Of the patients 19 underwent transrectal hyperthermia with the Biodan Prostathermer and in 15 the Primus Prostate Machine was used. At 2 1/2 years 7 of 19 patients (37%) patients in the Prostathermer group and 6 of 15 (40%) in the Primus group had adequate sustained improvement and had not undergone further treatment. At 1 year 55 of 100 patients (55%) treated with the Thermex-II section transurethral thermotherapy unit had a satisfactory result, with 40 (40%) having undergone transurethral resection of the prostate. The number of patients who failed therapy increased with each followup. Analysis of pretreatment parameters, including patient age, prostate size, peak urinary flow rate, post-void residual urine volume and symptom score, did not predict a successful outcome. Although these devices have minimal effect on peak urinary flow rate, a subset of patients enjoy symptomatic improvement.
对139例有症状的良性前列腺增生患者使用3种前列腺加热装置进行了一项非随机试验性研究。其中19例患者使用Biodan Prostathermer进行经直肠热疗，15例使用Primus前列腺治疗仪。在2年半时，Prostathermer组19例患者中有7例（37%）、Primus组15例患者中有6例（40%）获得了足够的持续改善且未接受进一步治疗。在1年时，使用Thermex-II型经尿道热疗装置治疗的100例患者中有55例（55%）取得了满意结果，其中40例（40%）接受了经尿道前列腺切除术。随着每次随访，治疗失败的患者数量增加。对治疗前参数（包括患者年龄、前列腺大小、最大尿流率、排尿后残余尿量和症状评分）的分析未能预测治疗结果是否成功。尽管这些装置对最大尿流率影响极小，但有一部分患者症状得到改善。
