OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the classification systems for male chronic pelvic pain (CPP).
METHODS: The Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), and Web of Science were searched. Any publication, with no restriction to publication date, was eligible. Publications had to propose a classification system for CPP in males or provide additional information of a system that had been identified. Systems were assessed with an adapted Critical Appraisal of Classification Systems tool.
RESULTS: A total of 33 relevant publications were identified, with 22 proposing an original classification system. Systems aimed to: (i) diagnose CPP and/or differentially diagnose CPP from other conditions, (ii) differentially diagnose subtypes within CPP, or (iii) identify features that could inform underlying mechanisms and/or treatment selection. Conditions referred to as chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome and interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome were most represented. Clinical signs/symptoms, pathoanatomical investigations, and presumed pain mechanisms were used for classification. Quality of systems was low to moderate, implying limitations to consider for their interpretation.
CONCLUSIONS: Many classification systems for CPP in males exist. Careful consideration of their intended purpose is required. Future work should examine whether outcomes for patients are improved when decisions are guided by their use.

UNASSIGNED: We sought to systematically review and summarize the peer-reviewed literature on urologic chronic pelvic pain syndrome flares, including their terminology, manifestation, perceived triggers, management and prevention strategies, impact on quality of life, and insights into pathophysiologic mechanisms, as a foundation for future empirical research.
UNASSIGNED: We searched 6 medical databases for articles related to any aspect of symptom exacerbations for interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome and chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome. A total of 1486 abstracts and 398 full-text articles were reviewed, and data were extracted by at least 2 individuals.
UNASSIGNED: Overall, we identified 59 articles, including 36 qualitative, cross-sectional, or case-control; 15 cohort-based; and 8 experimental articles. The majority of studies described North American patients with confirmed diagnoses. \"Flare\" was a commonly used term, but additional terminology (eg, exacerbation) was also used. Most flares involved significant increases in pain intensity, but less data were available on flare frequency and duration. Painful, frequent, long-lasting, and unpredictable flares were highly impactful, even over and above participants\' nonflare symptoms. A large number of perceived triggers (eg, diet, stress) and management/prevention strategies (eg, analgesics, thermal therapy, rest) were proposed by participants, but few had empirical support. In addition, few studies explored underlying biologic mechanisms.
UNASSIGNED: Overall, we found that flares are painful and impactful, but otherwise poorly understood in terms of manifestation (frequency and duration), triggers, treatment, prevention, and pathophysiology. These summary findings provide a foundation for future flare-related research and highlight gaps that warrant additional empirical studies.

OBJECTIVE: This study attempted to explore the efficacy of a combination of alpha-blockers and antibiotics compared with antibiotic monotherapy in patients with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS).
METHODS: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane/CENTRAL, EBSCOHost/CINAHL, ProQuest, and Scopus on January 2020. Randomized controlled trials comparing antibiotic monotherapy with combination therapy of antibiotics and alpha-blockers in CP/CPPS patients lasting at least 4 weeks were included. The study eligibility assessment, data extraction, and study quality assessment were carried out by each author independently and in duplication.
RESULTS: A total of six low- to high-quality studies with 396 patients were included in the study. Two reviews reported lower National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) total scores in the monotherapy arm at Week 6. Only one study reported otherwise. On Day 90, the NIH-CPSI score was found to be lower in the combination group. In the pain, urinary, and quality-of-life domain, most studies agree that combination therapy is not superior to monotherapy. However, on Day 90, all domains were found to be lower in the combination therapy. Responder rates were found to vary between studies. Only four out of six studies reported a response rate. Responder rates were lower in the combination group at 6 weeks of observation. On Day 90, responder rates were found to be better in the combination group.
CONCLUSIONS: The combination therapy of antibiotics and alpha-blockers is not substantially better than antibiotic monotherapy in the first 6 weeks of treatment for CP/CPPS patients. This might not be applicable to a longer duration of treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Pathologies of the prostate in men are one of the most prevalent clinical conditions today [1]. Specifically, pelvic inflammatory disease such as prostatitis can cause symptoms and syndromes different from urological ones, such as bowel or nervous system manifestations. This has a largely negative impact on the quality of life of patients. Therefore, it is convenient to know and update the information about the therapeutic approach to prostatitis, which is a challenge that involves different medical specialties. The aim of this article is to provide summarized and focused evidence to help in the therapeutic approach of patients with prostatitis. A computer-based search of the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases was used to perform a comprehensive literature review on prostatitis, with special interest in recent findings and latest therapeutic guideline recommendations.
RESULTS: Recent discoveries about the epidemiology and clinical classifications of prostatitis seem to incur in an increasingly individualized and directed management, with the aim of covering all the confluent factors in prostatic inflammatory pathology. In addition, the role of new drugs and combination with phytotherapy open up a range of new treatment possibilities, although future randomized studies will be necessary to better understand how to use all treatment modalities. Despite all the knowledge acquired about the pathophysiology of prostate diseases, and due to their interrelation with other pelvic systems and organs, there are still gaps that make it difficult for us to provide an optimal and standardized treatment in many of our patients. Being aware of the influence of all the factors potentially involved in prostate symptoms is crucial for a correct diagnosis and establishing an effective treatment plan.

Prostatitis is classified into four categories according to the National Institutes of Health Consensus Classification. The largest category, Category III chronic prostatitis and chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS), has a wide range of symptoms and is difficult to diagnose because diagnosis is based on exclusion. Although many treatment modalities, including both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments, have been tried, definitive treatment methods have not yet been established, and many urologists struggle with the daily treatment of these conditions. The reasons for the failure of treatment are not only the wide variety of symptoms, but also the wide variety of causes. Therefore, the UPOINTS system is widely used, in which treatment methods are divided or combined according to symptoms and causes. This article summarizes the reports on treatment and reviews treatment findings for CP/CPPS in accordance with the UPOINTS system.

Chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS) is a functional pain disorder characterized by ongoing pain in the apparent absence of clinically identifiable causes. The prevalence of functional pain disorders demonstrates the importance of adequate management of ongoing symptomatology, but due to the uncertain etiology and myriad patient presentation phenotypes, reliable treatment options are difficult to implement. New interventions involving non-pharmacological approaches to pain management have been investigated across a spectrum of clinical and pre-clinical studies. Given that conservative care such as exercise, counseling, and musculoskeletal therapy is widely recommended as first-line treatment for CPPS, an updated review of these and related methodologies are needed. Familiarizing physicians and the public with the newest evidence for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and other conservative care treatments will assist with the promotion of evidence-based practices in a safe and reliable manner. This review aimed to summarize the current evidence and proposed mechanisms for non-pharmacological treatment specific to CAM and management of chronic pelvic pain centered on neuromusculoskeletal focused intervention such as acupuncture, auriculotherapy, manipulation, manual therapy, myofascial release, and phototherapy. The discussion suggests that reported improvements in pelvic pain or related symptomatology may be attributed to changes in the peripheral inflammasome and somatic origins of peripheral sensitization. Robustness of the included clinical studies is discussed throughout the review, and attention is paid to delineating inclusion criteria of formally diagnosed CPPS compared to general pelvic or abdominal pain. Overall, this review consolidates the current state of evidence regarding the utilization of non-traditional interventions using CAM techniques for the management of chronic pelvic pain and recommends a future direction for the field.

Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a complex condition. Despite recommendations for the inclusion of non-pharmacological treatment in the management of CP/CPPS, the focus has predominantly been on the inclusion of physical therapies with minimal discussion of psychological interventions. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to evaluate peer-reviewed studies of psychological interventions for men with CP/CPPS to determine their therapeutic efficacy and quality of intervention.
The review was registered in PROSPERO and based on PRISMA 2020 protocol. The systematic literature search was conducted in six databases. Quantitative studies of psychological intervention for adult men with CP/CPPS that provided outcome measures of pain, quality of life and/or psychological symptoms were reviewed. The Oxford level of evidence and Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies developed by the Effective Public Health Practice were employed.
A total of 4,503 studies were reviewed; seven met the inclusion criteria. The included studies were randomised controlled trials, cohort, repeated measures, and case-series studies, with most including combined treatment for CP/CPPS. Cognitive therapy, cognitive behavioural therapy, or paradoxical relaxation training were found to be effective. However, high risks of bias were found in all included studies, limiting the generalisability and reliability of findings.
Evidence is preliminary but shows promise for psychological treatment either as a combined or standalone treatment for CP/CPPS. However, there is a need to develop research with a more rigorous methodology to evaluate psychological treatments for men with CP/CPPS.

Chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS) is defined as the occurrence of chronic pelvic pain (CPP) in the absence of a specific cause. People typically refer to pain associated with urological, gynaecological, and sexual dysfunction, affecting the quality of life. Therefore, we assessed the effectiveness of myofascial manual therapies (MMT) for pain and symptom impact.
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Findings were reported following the 2020 PRISMA statement. Five databases were searched for RCTs. Studies were independently assessed through a standardized form, and their internal validity was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool. Effect sizes (ES) were calculated post-treatment, and the quality of evidence was assessed through GRADE criteria.
Seven articles were included in the review, five of these in the meta-analysis. None of these studies were completely judged at low RoB. MMT was revealed to be not significantly superior for pain reduction [ES: -0.54 (-1.16; 0.08); p = 0.09], for symptom impact [ES: -0.37 (-0.87; 0.13); p = 0.15], and for quality of life [ES: -0.44 (-1.22, 0.33), p = 0.26] compared to standard care. The quality of evidence was \"very low\". Other results were presented in a qualitative synthesis.
In patients with CPP/CPPS, MMT is not considered superior to other interventions for pain reduction and symptom impact improvements. However, a positive trend was detected, and we should find confirmation in the future. Further high-quality, double-blinded, sham-controlled RCTs are first necessary to confirm these positive effects and to improve the quality of evidence.

暂无摘要。

It is a common practice to control efficacy of pharmacological treatment with a placebo group. However, placebo itself may affect subjective and even objective results. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the placebo effect on symptoms of CP/CPPS to improve future clinical trials.
A search at three databases (Scopus, MEDLINE, and Web of Science) was conducted to identify double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials on the treatment of CP/CPPS published until April 2021. The primary outcome - National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) score.
Qmax, PVR, IPSS, and prostate volume.
A total of 3502 studies were identified. Placebo arms of 42 articles (5512 patients, median 31 patients) were included in the systematic review. Systematic review identified positive changes in the primary endpoint, meta-analysis of 10 articles found that NIH-CPSI total score results were significantly influenced by placebo, mean difference -4.2 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -6.31, -2.09). Mean difference of NIH-CPSI pain domain was -2.31 (95% CI: -3.4, -1.21), urinary domain -1.12 (95% CI: -1.62, -0.62), quality of life domain -1.67 (95% CI: -2.38, -0.96); p < 0.001 for all. In case of the objective indicator - Qmax, there were three articles included in the meta-analysis. Qmax mean change from baseline was 0.68 (95% CI: -0.85, 2.22, p = 0.38). Systematic review showed no significant changes in pain, measured by VAS or other scores, IPSS and PVR.
Placebo significantly affected the subjective parameters (NIH-CPSI) and limitedly affected various other measurements of pain (visual analog scale, McGill pain questionnaire). There was no long-term effect on IPSS and objective measurements (Qmax, PVR). This study can be used in further clinical trials to develop general rules of CPPS treatment assessment.