| Literature DB >> 35001668 |
Ongart Sinsomboon1, Patranuch Noppakulsatit2, Adis Tassanarong1, Parunkul Tungsukruthai1, Kusuma Sriyakul1.
Abstract
The prospective clinical, non-inferiority study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of Thai traditional massage on lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) compared with Tamsulosin in Thai men. It was conducted on men aged 50 to 75 years old with LUTS (N = 45). Participants were blocked four randomly assigned into 2 groups. The control group (n = 25) was received 0.4 mg Tamsulosin daily and the study group (n = 20) was given Thai traditional massage for 4 weeks. The efficacy evaluation was performed by the International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS), a Thai version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnaire (WHO-QoL Brief), Uroflowmetry, and Post-void residual urine (PVR) at baseline and end of study. The background characteristics of participants were not significantly different between groups. Both interventions relieved LUTS in the total IPSS and the quality of life score associated with urination were decreased, described as symptoms and quality of life due to urination improvement after 4 weeks of intervention. Interestingly, the Thai traditional massage has significant improvement in total IPSS and voiding score (p < .05). Additionally, the time to peak flow rate, peak flow rate (Qmax), average flow rate (Qave) and voided volume of both interventions were improved with no statistical significance. PVR was decreased in both interventions. The WHO-QoL brief score was improved the total score. There was no significant difference in terms of uroflowmetry, PVR, and WHO-QoL brief scores compared between groups. The result suggests that Thai traditional massage has the potential to be an alternative treatment for LUTS.Entities:
Keywords: LUTS; Thai traditional massage; tamsulosin
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35001668 PMCID: PMC8753073 DOI: 10.1177/2515690X211068825
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Evid Based Integr Med ISSN: 2515-690X
Figure 4.Study flowchart
Figure 1.the location of Thai traditional massage, the line of edge of abdomen
Figure 2.three pairs points of massage
Figure 3.the middle line of abdominal massage
Baseline Characteristics of Participants.
| The control group
| The study group
| P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 63.20 ± 7.11 | 62.65 ± 7.06 | .797 |
|
| |||
|
| 2.56 ± 1.56 | 3.30 ± 3.51 | .347 |
|
| 14.80 ± 2.71 | 14.52 ± 4.27 | .786 |
|
| 1.01 ± 0.18 | 1.04 ± 0.17 | .608 |
|
| 78.89 ± 19.72 | 70.96 ± 16.12 | .161 |
Data was analyzed by ANOVA test.
Values are expressed in mean ± standard deviation.
Abbreviations: N = Number of patients in each group.
PSA = Prostate Specific Antigen.
BUN = Blood Urea Nitrogen.
Cr = Creatinine.
GFR = Glomerular Filtration Rate.
* = P-value <.05 is considered a statistically significant difference.
Duration of LUTS, Frequency of Subgroup LUT Symptoms and Comorbidity of Baseline Evaluation.
| The control group | The study group | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| N (%) | N (%) | ||
|
| |||
| 6 months | 14 (56.0) | 8 (40.0) | .387 |
| 9 months | 1 (4.0) | 1 (5.0) | |
| 12 months | 3 (12.0) | 6 (30.0) | |
| 24 months | 7 (28.0) | 4 (20.0) | |
| 36 months | 0 (0.0) | 1 (5.0) | |
|
| |||
| Urgency | 10 (40.0) | 11 (55.0) | .316 |
| Increased daytime frequency | 19 (76.0) | 14 (70.0) | .651 |
| Nocturia | 21 (84.0) | 19 (95.0) | .243 |
| Urinary incontinence | 12 (48.0) | 8 (40.0) | .592 |
|
| |||
| Slow stream | 18 (72.0) | 13 (65.0) | .614 |
| Intermittency | 12 (48.0) | 13 (65.0) | .254 |
| Hesitancy | 9 (36.0) | 8 (40.0) | .783 |
| Straining | 15 (60.0) | 12 (60.0) | 1.000 |
| Post-void dribbling | 3 (12.0) | 4 (20.0) | .416 |
| Dysuria | 6 (24.0) | 4 (20.0) | .694 |
| Incomplete emptying | 18 (72.0) | 9 (45.0) | .066 |
|
| |||
| None | 10 (40.0) | 6 (30.0) | .544 |
| Hypertension | 9 (36.0) | 10 (50.0) | .379 |
| Diabetes Miletus | 5 (20.0) | 6 (30.0) | .500 |
| Dyslipidemia | 7 (28.0) | 6 (30.0) | 1.000 |
| Heart disease | 3 (12.0) | 0 (0.0) | .242 |
| Liver disease | 0 (0.0) | 3 (15.0) | .080 |
| Allergy | 1 (4.0) | 1 (5.0) | 1.000 |
| Parkinson's disease | 0 (0.0) | 1 (5.0) | .455 |
| Gastritis | 1 (4.0) | 1 (5.0) | 1.000 |
| Cerebrovascular | 0 (0.0) | 1 (5.0) | .444 |
| Inguinal hernia | 0 (0.0) | 1 (5.0) | .444 |
| Anxiety | 1 (4.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1.000 |
Data was analyzed by Chi2 test, LUT = Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms.
* = P-value <0.05 is considered a statistically significant difference.
the Severity of LUTS from Baseline to end of Treatments.
| The control group
| The study group
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N (%) | N (%) | |||
| Severity of LUTS (Scores) | Baseline | End of study | Baseline | End of study |
|
Mild (0-7) | 0.0 (0.0) | 9.0 (36.0) | 0.0 (0.0) | 15.0 (75.0) |
|
Moderate (8-19) | 25.0 (100.0) | 12.0 (48.0) | 20.0 (100.0) | 5 (25.0) |
|
Severe (20-35) | 0.0 (0.0) | 4.0 (48.0) | 0.0 (0.0) | 0.0 (0.0) |
Changes from Baseline to end of Treatments in IPSS, Uroflowmetry Parameters, PVR, and WHO-QoL.
| Parameters | The control group (N = 25) | The study group (N = 20) | P-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | End of study | Baseline | End of study | ||
|
| |||||
| Total score | 14.40 ± 4.70 | 11.48 ± 6.32 | 14.45 ± 3.33 | 6.90 ± 2.43 | .004* |
|
Storage (24,7) | 7.76 ± 2.33 | 6.44 ± 2.90 | 7.10 ± 2.34 | 5.35 ± 1.53 | .137 |
|
Voiding (1,3,5,6) | 6.64 ± 4.19 | 5.08 ± 5.04 | 7.35 ± 3.75 | 1.55 ± 1.96 | .005* |
| UQoL | 3.44 ± 0.65 | 2.48 ± 1.42 | 3.80 ± 0.95 | 2.05 ± 0.76 | .228 |
|
| |||||
|
Voiding time | 47.79 ± 20.69 | 50.17 ± 24.19 | 68.47 ± 3.26 | 50.02 ± 18.89 | .982 |
|
Flowtime | 40.66 ± 20.35 | 41.11 ± 20.54 | 53.75 ± 23.01 | 46.17 ± 16.35 | .375 |
|
Time to peak flow rate | 14.39 ± 14.92 | 10.90 ± 7.90 | 14.25 ± 12.95 | 9.64 ± 6.67 | .572 |
|
Peak flow rate (Qmax) (15 mL/s) | 9.65 ± 2.66 | 10.53 ± 4.66 | 10.33 ± 4.29 | 11.76 ± 5.61 | .427 |
|
Average flow rate (Qave) | 5.07 ± 1.68 | 5.52 ± 2.35 | 5.37 ± 2.53 | 6.05 ± 3.16 | .523 |
|
Voided volume (>150 mL.) | 203.83 ± 102.05 | 222.73 ± 129.93 | 257.66 ± 110.43 | 260.66 ± 138.85 | .351 |
|
| 77.68 ± 86.06 | 61.72 ± 83.40 | 88.90 ± 130.76 | 83.30 ± 116.81 | .474 |
|
| |||||
|
Total score | 90.24 ± 9.24 | 91.40 ± 8.25 | 85.90 ± 14.39 | 86.75 ± 14.18 | .176 |
|
Physical (D1) | 28.44 ± 12.93 | 28.28 ± 13.03 | 23.75 ± 4.88 | 25.45 ± 4.37 | .358 |
|
Psychological (D2) | 25.84 ± 13.37 | 26.44 ± 13.26 | 22.80 ± 3.52 | 23.00 ± 4.18 | .271 |
|
Social relationship (D3) | 13.76 ± 16.03 | 14.24 ± 15.24 | 10.40 ± 1.85 | 10.25 ± 2.15 | .253 |
|
Environment (D4) | 32.80 ± 12.31 | 33.04 ± 11.77 | 28.95 ± 4.83 | 27.95 ± 5.63 | .083 |
Data was analyzed by ANOVA test.
Values are expressed in mean ± standard deviation.
Abbreviations: N = Number of patients in each group.
IPSS = International Prostate Symptom Score.
PVR = Post-voided residual urine volume.
WHO-QoL = World Health Organization Quality of Life.
* = P-value <.05 is considered a statistically significant difference.