Abstract：
Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a heterogenous condition that impacts the Quality of life severely, and it has multimodal complex treatment options. We aimed to compare the efficacy of two well-described neuromodulation therapies, transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (TTNS) versus percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) in the treatment of category IIIB CP/CPPS.
This study was designed as a randomized prospective clinical trial. We randomized category IIIB CP/CPPS patients into two treatment groups as TTNS and PTNS groups. Category IIIB CP/CPPS was diagnosed by two or four-glass Meares-Stamey test. All patients included in our study were antibiotic/anti-inflammatory resistant. Transcutaneous and percutaneous treatments were applied 30 min sessions for 12 weeks. Patients were evaluated by Turkish-validated National Health Institute Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) initially and after treatment. Treatment success was evaluated within each group and also compared with each other.
A total of 38 patients in the TTNS group and 42 patients in the PTNS group were included in the final analysis. The mean VAS scores of the TTNS group were lower than the PTNS group initially (7.11 and 7.43, respectively), (p = 0.03). The pretreatment NIH-CPSI scores were similar between groups (p = 0.07). VAS scores, total NIH-CPSI, NIH-CPSI micturation, NIH-CPSI pain, and NIH-CPSI QoL scores decreased significantly at the end of the treatment in both groups. We found a significantly higher VAS and NIH-CPSI scores decrease in the PTNS group compared to the TTNS group (p < 0.01).
Both PTNS and TTNS are effective treatment methods in category IIIB CP/CPPS. Comparing the two methods, PTNS provided a higher level of improvement in terms of pain and quality of life.
This study was designed as a randomized prospective clinical trial. We randomized category IIIB CP/CPPS patients into two treatment groups as TTNS and PTNS groups. Category IIIB CP/CPPS was diagnosed by two or four-glass Meares-Stamey test. All patients included in our study were antibiotic/anti-inflammatory resistant. Transcutaneous and percutaneous treatments were applied 30 min sessions for 12 weeks. Patients were evaluated by Turkish-validated National Health Institute Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) initially and after treatment. Treatment success was evaluated within each group and also compared with each other.
A total of 38 patients in the TTNS group and 42 patients in the PTNS group were included in the final analysis. The mean VAS scores of the TTNS group were lower than the PTNS group initially (7.11 and 7.43, respectively), (p = 0.03). The pretreatment NIH-CPSI scores were similar between groups (p = 0.07). VAS scores, total NIH-CPSI, NIH-CPSI micturation, NIH-CPSI pain, and NIH-CPSI QoL scores decreased significantly at the end of the treatment in both groups. We found a significantly higher VAS and NIH-CPSI scores decrease in the PTNS group compared to the TTNS group (p < 0.01).
Both PTNS and TTNS are effective treatment methods in category IIIB CP/CPPS. Comparing the two methods, PTNS provided a higher level of improvement in terms of pain and quality of life.
摘要：
背景：慢性前列腺炎/慢性盆腔疼痛综合征（CP/CPPS）是一种异质性疾病，严重影响生活质量，它有多模式复杂的治疗方案。我们的目的是比较两种描述良好的神经调节疗法的疗效，经皮胫神经刺激（TTNS）与经皮胫神经刺激（PTNS）治疗IIIBCP/CPPS。
方法：本研究设计为随机前瞻性临床试验。我们将IIIB类CP/CPPS患者随机分为两个治疗组，即TTNS和PTNS组。IIIB类CP/CPPS通过两个或四个玻璃Meares-Stamey测试诊断。我们研究中包括的所有患者均具有抗生素/抗炎抗性。经皮和经皮治疗30分钟，持续12周。最初和治疗后，通过土耳其验证的国家卫生研究所慢性前列腺炎症状指数（NIH-CPSI）和视觉模拟量表（VAS）对患者进行评估。在每组内评估治疗的成功率，并相互比较。
结果：最终分析包括TTNS组的38例患者和PTNS组的42例患者。TTNS组最初的平均VAS评分低于PTNS组（分别为7.11和7.43），（p=0.03）。两组治疗前NIH-CPSI评分相似(p=0.07)。VAS评分,NIH-CPSI总数，NIH-CPSI排尿,NIH-CPSI疼痛,两组治疗结束时NIH-CPSIQoL评分均显著下降。我们发现，与TTNS组相比，PTNS组的VAS和NIH-CPSI评分降低（p<0.01）。
结论：PTNS和TTNS均是IIIB类CP/CPPS的有效治疗方法。比较这两种方法，PTNS在疼痛和生活质量方面提供了更高水平的改善。
方法：本研究设计为随机前瞻性临床试验。我们将IIIB类CP/CPPS患者随机分为两个治疗组，即TTNS和PTNS组。IIIB类CP/CPPS通过两个或四个玻璃Meares-Stamey测试诊断。我们研究中包括的所有患者均具有抗生素/抗炎抗性。经皮和经皮治疗30分钟，持续12周。最初和治疗后，通过土耳其验证的国家卫生研究所慢性前列腺炎症状指数（NIH-CPSI）和视觉模拟量表（VAS）对患者进行评估。在每组内评估治疗的成功率，并相互比较。
结果：最终分析包括TTNS组的38例患者和PTNS组的42例患者。TTNS组最初的平均VAS评分低于PTNS组（分别为7.11和7.43），（p=0.03）。两组治疗前NIH-CPSI评分相似(p=0.07)。VAS评分,NIH-CPSI总数，NIH-CPSI排尿,NIH-CPSI疼痛,两组治疗结束时NIH-CPSIQoL评分均显著下降。我们发现，与TTNS组相比，PTNS组的VAS和NIH-CPSI评分降低（p<0.01）。
结论：PTNS和TTNS均是IIIB类CP/CPPS的有效治疗方法。比较这两种方法，PTNS在疼痛和生活质量方面提供了更高水平的改善。
