比較磁波椅電刺激治療與電刺激合併生物回饋治療在男性慢性骨盆疼痛症候群患者之療效
楊旻鑫1,5、黃玉慧2,4、賴郁芬3、曾聖維2、陳順郎1,5
中山醫學大學附設醫院; 1泌尿科, 2復健科, 3物理治療室
4中山醫學大學醫學系
5中山醫學大學醫學研究所
Comparing electromagnetic stimulation with electrostimulation plus biofeedback in treating male refractory chronic pelvic pain syndrome
Min-Hsin Yang 1,5、 Yu-Hui Huang2,4、Yu-Fen Lai3、Sheng-Wei Zeng2、Sung-Lang Chen 1,4*
1 Department of Urology, 2 Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and
3 Department of physical therapy, ChungShanMedicalUniversityHospital, Taichung, Taiwan, ROC
4 School of Medicine, ChungShanMedicalUniversity, Taichung, Taiwan, ROC
5 Institute of medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan, ROC
Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of electromagnetic stimulation (EMS) versus electrostimulation plus biofeedback (ESB) for the treatment of refractory chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS) in men.
Materials and Methods: A total of 23 male refractory CPPS patients were included in the study. EMS was applied for 30 minutes, three times weekly, for 6 weeks, for pelvic floor rehabilitation. We retrospectively compared the outcomes with 22 male refractory CPPS patients treated with ESB twice a week for 2 weeks, and later once a week for 4 weeks. Each ESB session lasted 45 mins, including biofeedback (15 mins) followed by electrostimulation (30 mins). The outcome measures included the National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptoms Index (NIH-CPSI), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and a Visual Analogue Score (VAS) for pain from baseline to 12 weeks after completion of treatment.
Results: Significantly reduced pain, improved quality of life (QoL), and lowered total score of the NIH-CPSI were observed in both groups (all p<0.05). The ESB group also demonstrated improvement in the urinary sub-score of the NIH-CPSI. No significant differences were found between the groups in the urinary score measures of the NIH-CPSI. The mean pain score (p=0.035), QoL (p=0.012), and total score (p=0.009) improved significantly in the ESB group compared with EMS group. Total IPSS and VAS improved significantly after treatment in both groups. However, no significant differences were noted between the groups in the total and subdomain sums of the IPSS.
Conclusion: Both EMS and ESB physical therapy of the pelvic floor muscle effectively reduce pain, increase the QoL, and improve urinary tract symptoms in male CPPS patients who are refractory to medical treatments. The combination therapyof ES plus biofeedback demonstrates additional benefits in pain and QoLwhen compared with EMS alone.