1995
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1995.tb07774.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Transurethral microwave thermotherapy: an evolving technology in the treatment of benign prostatic enlargement

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
7
0

Year Published

1996
1996
2003
2003

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
(42 reference statements)
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…"9 Our present study shows that symptomatic improvement is in the same range as reported in previous studies of low energy thermotherapy. 29 The Madsen symptom score usually shows a baseline value of approximately 13 with an expected outcome of approximately 4, Our study is comparable with a mean improvement from 13.9 at baseline to 5.3, 6 months after treatment. The same degree of improvement may be seen in the I-PSS.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 71%
“…"9 Our present study shows that symptomatic improvement is in the same range as reported in previous studies of low energy thermotherapy. 29 The Madsen symptom score usually shows a baseline value of approximately 13 with an expected outcome of approximately 4, Our study is comparable with a mean improvement from 13.9 at baseline to 5.3, 6 months after treatment. The same degree of improvement may be seen in the I-PSS.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 71%
“…It has been demonstrated that lower energy thermotherapy is a safe treatment with low morbidity and good tolerability. This treatment has few adverse effects on sexual dysfunction and has effective short-term outcome [16][17][18]. However, at long term large numbers of nonresponders have been reported in need of additional therapy.…”
Section: Effect and Mechanism Of Transurethral Microwave Thermotherapymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Generally, one can expect approximately 75% of treated patients to respond favorably with an approximate 65% reduction in symptom scores (Sx) and an approximate 35% improvement in peak flow rates (PFR) [3, 4]. Patients with symptomatic BPH, prostatic lengths of 35–50 mm and minimal bladder outlet obstruction are the best patients for the low energy protocol [5, 6].…”
Section: Materials and Techniquementioning
confidence: 99%