【摘要】 目的:比较体外冲击波与高频热疗对慢性非细菌性前列腺炎(CABP)的疗效。方法:选取76例CABP患者,采用随机数表法将其分为高频热疗组与冲击波组,每组38例。高频热疗组实施体外高频热疗,冲击波组实施体外冲击波治疗,并于治疗6周后依据慢性前列腺炎症状指数(NIH-CPSI)及前列腺液白细胞计数来评定疗效。结果:1冲击波组治疗后NIH-CPSI评分、疼痛评分、排尿及前列腺液白细胞计数改善幅度明显高于高频热疗组,差异有统计学意义(t=5.26,t=4.19,t=4.08,t=3.31;P<0.05);2冲击波组前列腺按摩液(EPS)中白细胞介素-6(IL-6)从治疗前的(54.76±6.03)ng/ml升高至治疗后的(85.13±9.73)ng/ml,肿瘤坏死因子α(TNF-α)及白细胞介素-1β(IL-1β)浓度分别从治疗前的(3.90±0.15)ng/ml和(3.40±1.18)ng/ml下降至(3.01±0.26)ng/ml和(1.51±0.70)ng/ml,改善幅度均明显高于高频热疗组,差异有统计学意义(t=5.35,t=3.13,t=8.29;P<0.05);3高频热疗组治疗总有效率为57.89%,冲击波组治疗总有效率为81.58%,冲击波组总有效率高于高频热疗组,差异有统计学意义(x2=5.05,P<0.05)。治疗期间两组患者均未发生明显不良反应。结论:体外高频热疗与冲击波治疗CABP均有一定疗效,但冲击波对患者疼痛及排尿症状的改善更为明显。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective: To compare the clinical curative effects of extracorporeal shock wave and high-frequency hyperthermia in treatment of chronic abacterial prostatitis(CABP). Methods: Seventy six cases of patients with CABP were chosen as the research objects in our hospital. All patients was divided into high-frequency hyperthermia group and shock wave group according to the digital random list method, 38 cases in each group. The patients were treated with high-frequency hyperthermia in high-frequency hyperthermia group, extracorporeal shock wave in shock wave group. The curative effects were assessed according to NIH-CPSI(National Institute of Health-Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index) and white blood cell count in prostate fluid at 6 weeks after treatment. Results: 1NIH-CPSI scores, pain scores, micturition and white blood cell counts were improved more in shock wave group, compared with highfrequency hyperthermia group, the differences were statistically significant(t=5.26, 4.19, 4.08, 3.31 respectively, P<0.05). 2In shock wave group, the concentration of IL-6 in the EPS was significantly increased([54.76±6.03] vs [85.13±9.73]ng/ml), while the level of TNF-α([3.90±0.15] vs [3.01±0.26]ng /ml) and that of IL-1β([3.40±1.18]vs[1.51±0.70]ng/ml) remarkably changed after treatment, the improved amplitude were significantly higher than that of high-frequency hyperthermia group(t=5.35, 3.13, 8.29 respectively, P<0.05). 3The effective rate was 57.89% after treatment in high-frequency hyperthermia group, and was 81.58% in shock wave group,the difference was statistically significant(x~2=5.05, P<0.05). Obvious adverse reactions did not happened during treatment in two groups. Conclusion: The clinical curative effects of extracorporeal shock wave and high-frequency hyperthermia in treatment of chronic abacterial prostatitis are positive, but the therapeutic effect of shock wave on the patient’s pain and urination is more apparent.更多还原