Journal of Andrology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Blute, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by Lewis, R. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Blute, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by Lewis, R. W.

Journal of Andrology, Vol 12, Issue 6 429-434, Copyright © 1991 by The American Society of Andrology

REVIEW

Local microwave hyperthermia as a treatment alternative for benign prostatic hyperplasia

M. L. Blute and R. W. Lewis
Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

It appears that the technology for local microwave application of heat to the prostate for the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia has arrived. There are a number of issues to be resolved in the coming years that will determine the role this modality will play in the overall management of men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. These issues include: transurethral versus transrectal route, hyperthermia (42 degrees C to 44 degrees C) versus thermotherapy (greater than 45 degrees C), and a proper assessment as to whether the technique is really efficacious, given the known placebo response in all studies currently available. The results with the transrectal route appear to improve patients' symptoms objectively and subjectively, without causing irreversible tissue effects. Thus, its action has been likened to alpha blockade. But, it appears that the transrectal approach is relatively inefficient because of a significant loss in microwave power with rectal cooling. A probe placed transurethrally can accurately and easily deliver the intended power to the center of the prostate, where theoretically it has its greatest effect on both the dynamic and static components of outlet obstruction. Currently, the transurethral devices described by Sapozink and Devonec will produce histologic necrosis. The theoretical value of combining urethral heating with cooling is that it will allow treatments of greater power deeper in the prostate adenoma, but the greatest advantage over transurethral heating without cooling may be in the ability to effect a response in a single session. Finally, the placebo response is a well known phenomenon seen in all drug trials conducted for the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1991 by The American Society of Andrology.