[电生理技术治疗慢性前列腺炎:疗效观察]。

Q4 Medicine 中华男科学杂志 Pub Date : 2024-07-01
Song Wang, Jian-Xin Hu, Shan Wang, Chao Peng, Ji Cai, Min Ding
{"title":"[电生理技术治疗慢性前列腺炎:疗效观察]。","authors":"Song Wang, Jian-Xin Hu, Shan Wang, Chao Peng, Ji Cai, Min Ding","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To observe the clinical effect of electrophysiological technique in treating chronic prostatitis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Choose 40 patients of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (chronicprostatis/chronicpelvicpainsyndrome, CP/CPPS) in People's Hospital in Zhijin and People's hospital in Guizhou Province from January 2022 to April 2023, The patients were randomly divided into control group (n=20) and treatment group (n=20). The treatment group received low-frequency neuromuscular electrical stimulation combined with drug therapy, while the control group received drug therapy alone. The improvement of prostatitis symptom score (NIH-CPSI) and International Prostatitis Symptom score (IPSS) before and after treatment was compared and analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 37 patients were followed up (1 patient in the treatment group withdrew due to hypersensitivity to the electrode; 2 patients in the control group were lost to follow-up. )There was no significant difference in baseline data between the two groups (P > 0.05). The NIH-CPSI score and IPSS score before and after treatment were compared between the two groups, and the difference was statistically significant (P< 0.05). The IPSS score of the two groups after treatment was compared, the average reduction of the treatment group was 15.84±0.92 points, and that of the control group was 7.17±0.40 points, and the difference was statistically significant (t=4.792, P< 0.05). The NIH-CPSI score of the two groups after treatment was compared, and the average reduction was 17.47±0.92 points in the treatment group and 10.56±0.49 points in the control group. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (t=6.654, P< 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The effect of electrophysiological combined drug therapy is obviously better than that of simple drug therapy. Electrophysiological therapy for chronic prostatitis has definite clinical effect and is worth promoting and applying.</p>","PeriodicalId":24012,"journal":{"name":"中华男科学杂志","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Electrophysiological technique for treatment of chronic prostatiti: Curative effect observation].\",\"authors\":\"Song Wang, Jian-Xin Hu, Shan Wang, Chao Peng, Ji Cai, Min Ding\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To observe the clinical effect of electrophysiological technique in treating chronic prostatitis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Choose 40 patients of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (chronicprostatis/chronicpelvicpainsyndrome, CP/CPPS) in People's Hospital in Zhijin and People's hospital in Guizhou Province from January 2022 to April 2023, The patients were randomly divided into control group (n=20) and treatment group (n=20). The treatment group received low-frequency neuromuscular electrical stimulation combined with drug therapy, while the control group received drug therapy alone. The improvement of prostatitis symptom score (NIH-CPSI) and International Prostatitis Symptom score (IPSS) before and after treatment was compared and analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 37 patients were followed up (1 patient in the treatment group withdrew due to hypersensitivity to the electrode; 2 patients in the control group were lost to follow-up. )There was no significant difference in baseline data between the two groups (P > 0.05). The NIH-CPSI score and IPSS score before and after treatment were compared between the two groups, and the difference was statistically significant (P< 0.05). The IPSS score of the two groups after treatment was compared, the average reduction of the treatment group was 15.84±0.92 points, and that of the control group was 7.17±0.40 points, and the difference was statistically significant (t=4.792, P< 0.05). The NIH-CPSI score of the two groups after treatment was compared, and the average reduction was 17.47±0.92 points in the treatment group and 10.56±0.49 points in the control group. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (t=6.654, P< 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The effect of electrophysiological combined drug therapy is obviously better than that of simple drug therapy. Electrophysiological therapy for chronic prostatitis has definite clinical effect and is worth promoting and applying.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":24012,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"中华男科学杂志\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"中华男科学杂志\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华男科学杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:观察电生理技术治疗慢性前列腺炎的临床效果:观察电生理技术治疗慢性前列腺炎的临床效果:选择2022年1月至2023年4月在贵州省织金县人民医院和贵州省人民医院就诊的40例慢性前列腺炎/慢性盆腔疼痛综合征(chronicprostatis/chronicpelvicpainsyndrome,CP/CPPS)患者,随机分为对照组(20例)和治疗组(20例)。治疗组接受低频神经肌肉电刺激联合药物治疗,对照组仅接受药物治疗。对比分析治疗前后前列腺炎症状评分(NIH-CPSI)和国际前列腺炎症状评分(IPSS)的改善情况:共对37名患者进行了随访(治疗组有1名患者因对电极过敏而退出,对照组有2名患者失去随访)。两组患者的基线数据无明显差异(P>0.05)。两组患者治疗前后的 NIH-CPSI 评分和 IPSS 评分比较,差异有统计学意义(P< 0.05)。比较两组治疗后的 IPSS 评分,治疗组平均(15.84±0.92)分,对照组平均(7.17±0.40)分,差异有统计学意义(t=4.792,P<0.05)。比较两组治疗后的 NIH-CPSI 评分,治疗组平均降低(17.47±0.92)分,对照组平均降低(10.56±0.49)分,差异有统计学意义(t=4.792,P<0.05)。两组比较差异有统计学意义(t=6.654,P< 0.05):结论:电生理联合药物治疗效果明显优于单纯药物治疗。电生理治疗慢性前列腺炎临床疗效确切,值得推广应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[Electrophysiological technique for treatment of chronic prostatiti: Curative effect observation].

Objective: To observe the clinical effect of electrophysiological technique in treating chronic prostatitis.

Methods: Choose 40 patients of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (chronicprostatis/chronicpelvicpainsyndrome, CP/CPPS) in People's Hospital in Zhijin and People's hospital in Guizhou Province from January 2022 to April 2023, The patients were randomly divided into control group (n=20) and treatment group (n=20). The treatment group received low-frequency neuromuscular electrical stimulation combined with drug therapy, while the control group received drug therapy alone. The improvement of prostatitis symptom score (NIH-CPSI) and International Prostatitis Symptom score (IPSS) before and after treatment was compared and analyzed.

Results: A total of 37 patients were followed up (1 patient in the treatment group withdrew due to hypersensitivity to the electrode; 2 patients in the control group were lost to follow-up. )There was no significant difference in baseline data between the two groups (P > 0.05). The NIH-CPSI score and IPSS score before and after treatment were compared between the two groups, and the difference was statistically significant (P< 0.05). The IPSS score of the two groups after treatment was compared, the average reduction of the treatment group was 15.84±0.92 points, and that of the control group was 7.17±0.40 points, and the difference was statistically significant (t=4.792, P< 0.05). The NIH-CPSI score of the two groups after treatment was compared, and the average reduction was 17.47±0.92 points in the treatment group and 10.56±0.49 points in the control group. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (t=6.654, P< 0.05).

Conclusion: The effect of electrophysiological combined drug therapy is obviously better than that of simple drug therapy. Electrophysiological therapy for chronic prostatitis has definite clinical effect and is worth promoting and applying.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
中华男科学杂志
中华男科学杂志 Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5367
期刊介绍:
期刊最新文献
[Clinical significance of prostatic exosomal protein and PSA in detecting prostate cancer with the PSA gray zone and PI-RADS-3 lesions]. [Effect of dietary modification-assisted multimodal therapy on chronic prostatitis]. [Effect of Xiongcan Yishen Formula on ferroptosis in mouse TM3 Leydig cells after oxidative stress injury]. [Electrophysiological technique for treatment of chronic prostatiti: Curative effect observation]. [Ferroptosis in the testis: Progress in research].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1