Jun Wu1,2, Xiang-Nong Hu1,2, Jian-Jun Yang1,2. 1. Department of Urology, Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210018, China. 2. Department of Urology, Jiangsu Province Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210018, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of biofeedback and electrical stimulation combined with prostate massage on chronic prostatitis /chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS). METHODS: A total of 76 cases of diagnosed CP/CPPS were randomly divided into groups A (n = 20), treated by prostatic massage twice a week, B (n = 20), treated by biofeedback and electrical stimulation 5 times a week, and C (n = 20) treated by biofeedback and electrical stimulation 5 times a week combined with prostatic massage twice a week, all for 14 days. Another 16 cases were included in group D as controls left untreated. NIH-CPSI scores were obtained before and at 30 days after treatment and compared among different groups of the patients. RESULTS: Compared with the baseline, the patients in groups A, B and C showed significant decreases after treatment in the NIH-CPSI scores for pain (［13.55 ± 2.37］ vs ［10.85 ± 2.28］, ［13.40 ± 2.28］ vs ［10.60 ± 2.23］, and ［13.70 ± 3.42］ vs ［8.65 ± 1.69］), urinary symptoms (［5.50 ± 1.43］ vs ［3.65 ± 1.27］, ［5.65 ± 1.31］ vs ［3.95 ± 1.28］, and ［5.40 ± 1.35］ vs ［2.95 ± 1.28］), quality of life (［8.70 ± 1.81］ vs ［6.90 ± 1.71］, ［8.90 ± 1.12］ vs ［5.80 ± 1.85］, and ［8.95 ± 1.47］ vs ［4.35 ± 1.53］) and the total NIH-CPSI scores (［27.75 ± 2.65］ vs ［21.40 ± 3.03］, ［27.95 ± 3.24］ vs ［20.35 ± 3.95］, and ［28.05 ± 3.78］ vs ［15.95 ± 2.41］) (P < 0.05). Even more remarkable reduction was observed in the total NIH-CPSI scores in group C than in A and B (P < 0.05), but with no statistically significant difference between groups A and B (P > 0.05) or in the control group before and after the treatment (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Biofeedback and electrical stimulation combined with prostate massage has a synergistic effect on CP/CPPS by alleviating pain and urinary symptoms and improving the quality of life.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of biofeedback and electrical stimulation combined with prostate massage on chronic prostatitis /chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS). METHODS: A total of 76 cases of diagnosed CP/CPPS were randomly divided into groups A (n = 20), treated by prostatic massage twice a week, B (n = 20), treated by biofeedback and electrical stimulation 5 times a week, and C (n = 20) treated by biofeedback and electrical stimulation 5 times a week combined with prostatic massage twice a week, all for 14 days. Another 16 cases were included in group D as controls left untreated. NIH-CPSI scores were obtained before and at 30 days after treatment and compared among different groups of the patients. RESULTS: Compared with the baseline, the patients in groups A, B and C showed significant decreases after treatment in the NIH-CPSI scores for pain (［13.55 ± 2.37］ vs ［10.85 ± 2.28］, ［13.40 ± 2.28］ vs ［10.60 ± 2.23］, and ［13.70 ± 3.42］ vs ［8.65 ± 1.69］), urinary symptoms (［5.50 ± 1.43］ vs ［3.65 ± 1.27］, ［5.65 ± 1.31］ vs ［3.95 ± 1.28］, and ［5.40 ± 1.35］ vs ［2.95 ± 1.28］), quality of life (［8.70 ± 1.81］ vs ［6.90 ± 1.71］, ［8.90 ± 1.12］ vs ［5.80 ± 1.85］, and ［8.95 ± 1.47］ vs ［4.35 ± 1.53］) and the total NIH-CPSI scores (［27.75 ± 2.65］ vs ［21.40 ± 3.03］, ［27.95 ± 3.24］ vs ［20.35 ± 3.95］, and ［28.05 ± 3.78］ vs ［15.95 ± 2.41］) (P < 0.05). Even more remarkable reduction was observed in the total NIH-CPSI scores in group C than in A and B (P < 0.05), but with no statistically significant difference between groups A and B (P > 0.05) or in the control group before and after the treatment (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Biofeedback and electrical stimulation combined with prostate massage has a synergistic effect on CP/CPPS by alleviating pain and urinary symptoms and improving the quality of life.