| Literature DB >> 33170523 |
Adrián Gaspar1, Joaquín Silva1, Gustavo Silva1, Raúl Anchelerguez1, Jorge Prats1, Alejandro Sagaz1, Eduardo Rovere1, Mauricio Alastra1, Juan Pino1, Alejandro Jauregui1, Marcos Farrugia1, Fabricio Villaroel1, Jonathan Guareschi1, Maximiliano Vega1, Emanuel Biasiori1, Emanuel Moyano1, Antonio La Rosa1, Irena Hreljac2, Zdenko Vižintin2.
Abstract
AIMS: This prospective study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between the use of Erbium:YAG (Er:YAG) laser in a nonablative mode, to the use of the pharmacological treatment of oral tadalafil for the treatment of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS).Entities:
Keywords: chronic prostatitis with chronic pelvic pain syndrome; nonablative Er:YAG laser therapy; tadalafil
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33170523 PMCID: PMC7839688 DOI: 10.1002/nau.24551
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neurourol Urodyn ISSN: 0733-2467 Impact factor: 2.367
Outcome measures in laser and tadalafil group at baseline and at follow‐ups
| Baseline | 1 month | 3 months | 6 months | 12 months | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Laser group ( | |||||
| Pain (0–10 VAS) | 7.75 (0.44) |
|
|
| 5.88 (0.38) |
| Dysuria (0–10 VAS) | 6.75 (0.67) |
|
|
| 3.62 (0.49) |
| IPSS score | 26 (1.59) | 14.88 (2.31) |
|
|
|
| Q flow max (ml/min) | 12.94 (0.43) |
|
|
|
|
| Patient satisfaction (Likert scale: From 0 [ | / | / | / | 1.62 (0.27) | 1.87 (0.30) |
| Tadalafil group ( | |||||
| Pain (0–10 VAS) | 7.6 (0.39) |
|
| 5.4 (0.51) | 5.7 (0.38) |
| Dysuria (0–10 VAS) | 6.45 (0.51) |
|
|
|
|
| IPSS score | 19.15 (1.59) |
|
|
|
|
| Q flow max (ml/min) | 12.95 (1.85) |
|
|
| / |
| Patient satisfaction (Likert scale: From 0 [very satisfied] to 6 [very unsatisfied]) | / | / | / | 2.65 (0.30) | 2.95 (0.23) |
Note: Numbers represent means with standard error in parentheses. Descriptive and comparative analyses were performed using Prism software (GraphPad). The Friedman test with multiple comparisons was used in comparing the values at baseline to the follow‐up values inside each group. The bold values represent statistical significant difference compared to baseline.
Abbreviations: IPSS, International Prostate Symptom Score; VAS, visual analogue scale.
p < .05, statistical significance of the measurement compared with baseline.
Figure 3(A) The graph shows mean (±SEM) VAS (visual analogue scale) pain scores at baseline and follow‐ups in both groups (laser group, N = 16; tadalafil group, N = 20). (B) The graph shows mean (±SEM) VAS dysuria scores at baseline and follow‐ups in both groups (laser group, N = 16; tadalafil group, N = 20); *p < .05 statistical significance from the baseline value
Figure 1(A) International Prostate Symptom Scores (IPSS) of the laser group. The graph shows the proportions of laser group patients (N = 16) in each IPSS severity category at baseline and at follow‐ups. (B) IPSS of the tadalafil group. The graph shows the proportions of tadalafil group patients (N = 20) in each IPSS severity category at baseline and at follow‐ups
Figure 2Decrease in International Prostate Symptom Scores (IPSS). The graph shows the mean decrease (±SEM) of IPSS scores in both groups (laser group, N = 16; tadalafil group, N = 20) at each follow‐up session in relation to the baseline IPSS score