<abstract>Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of biofeedback therapy in patients with chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS). Methods: From November 2001 to April 2002, patients visiting the Urological Outpatient Clinic ...<abstract>Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of biofeedback therapy in patients with chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS). Methods: From November 2001 to April 2002, patients visiting the Urological Outpatient Clinic of this Hospital were evaluated by means of the National Institute of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) and classified by the NIH classification standard. Sixty-two patients of CPPS category Ⅲwere involved in this study. All patients had been treated by conventional approaches such as antibiotics and alpha-blockers for more than half a year without any improvement. The expressed prostatic secretion results were as follows: WBC 5 to 9/high power field, lipid +-+++and bacterial culture negative. Their NIH-CPSI were 12-40. All the 62 cases complained of micturitional irritation (frequency, urgency, splitted stream and sense of residual urine), 32 cases, of pain or discomfort at the testicular, penile, scrotal, pelvic or rectal region and 13 cases, of white secretion-dripping. The patients were treated by the Urostym Biofeedback equipment (Laborie Co., Canada) 5 times a week for 2 weeks with a stimulus intensity of 15 mA-23 mA and duration of 20 minutes. Results: Sixty patients were significantly improved or cured, while no significant improvement in the remaining 2. No apparent side effect was observed. The NIH-CPSI dropped to 6 to 14 with an average reduction of 21 (P<0.01). In the 60 improved cases, pain was relieved after 2-3 treatment courses and other symptoms disappeared after 4-5 courses. Conclusion: Biofeedback therapy is a safe and effective treatment for CPPS. Large randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm its efficacy and to explore the mechanism of action.展开更多
文摘<abstract>Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of biofeedback therapy in patients with chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS). Methods: From November 2001 to April 2002, patients visiting the Urological Outpatient Clinic of this Hospital were evaluated by means of the National Institute of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) and classified by the NIH classification standard. Sixty-two patients of CPPS category Ⅲwere involved in this study. All patients had been treated by conventional approaches such as antibiotics and alpha-blockers for more than half a year without any improvement. The expressed prostatic secretion results were as follows: WBC 5 to 9/high power field, lipid +-+++and bacterial culture negative. Their NIH-CPSI were 12-40. All the 62 cases complained of micturitional irritation (frequency, urgency, splitted stream and sense of residual urine), 32 cases, of pain or discomfort at the testicular, penile, scrotal, pelvic or rectal region and 13 cases, of white secretion-dripping. The patients were treated by the Urostym Biofeedback equipment (Laborie Co., Canada) 5 times a week for 2 weeks with a stimulus intensity of 15 mA-23 mA and duration of 20 minutes. Results: Sixty patients were significantly improved or cured, while no significant improvement in the remaining 2. No apparent side effect was observed. The NIH-CPSI dropped to 6 to 14 with an average reduction of 21 (P<0.01). In the 60 improved cases, pain was relieved after 2-3 treatment courses and other symptoms disappeared after 4-5 courses. Conclusion: Biofeedback therapy is a safe and effective treatment for CPPS. Large randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm its efficacy and to explore the mechanism of action.
