Controversies in chronic abacterial prostatitis/pelvic pain syndrome

The chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome and pain catastrophizing: a vicious combination

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the presence and importance of pain catastrophizing among men diagnosed with chronic abacterial prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) in a routine clinical setting.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

61 men, mean age 46 ± 11 years, with a mean CP/CPPS history of 11 ± 11 years, completed the National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) and Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ) to evaluate pain catastrophizing, and the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5). They were also scored according to the UPOINT system.

RESULTS

The patients' mean scores were: IEEF-5 17.6 ± 7.3, NIH-CPSI pain subscale 11.1 ± 4.4, quality of life question 2.7 ± 1.6, quality of life impact subscale 6.9 ± 2.7 and CSQ catastrophizing score 15.3 ± 9.1. Patients with a high tendency for catastrophizing (CSQ score ≥20) (28%) had higher UPOINT and pain scores, worse quality of life and quality of life impact, but did not stand out regarding voiding dysfunction and ejaculatory pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Two distinctly different cohorts could be identified: a smaller cohort with a high degree of catastrophizing, severe pain and poor quality of life, and a larger one with a low degree of catastrophizing, less severe pain and moderately reduced quality of life. It is important in clinical practice to distinguish between the two groups since they require different therapeutic approaches.

Evaluation of a modification of the UPOINT clinical phenotype system for the chronic pelvic pain syndrome

OBJECTIVE

. To evaluate the recently presented six-domain UPOINT phenotype system for the chronic abacterial prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS) and to correlate it with clinically relevant parameters such as ejaculatory pain, pain localization, erectile dysfunction, cold sensitivity and the National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifty men with CPPS were classified in each of the six UPOINT domains. A CPPS focused history was obtained and the men were asked to complete the NIH-CPSI, the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) and the Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ).

RESULTS

The mean age was 46 years (range 26-71 years). The percentage positive for each domain was 26 (52%) for urinary, 18 (36%) for psychosocial, 19 (38%) for organ specific, 19 (38%) for infection, 18 (36%) for neurological/systemic and 16 (32%) for pelvic muscle tenderness. Mean NIH-CPSI was 23+/-7. The number of positive domains and the NIH-CPSI [correlation coefficient (r) = 0.478, p=0.002] and its quality of life section (r=0.432, p=0.003) were linked; there was, however, no correlation between the number of positive domains and IIEF-5, ejaculatory pain, painful micturition, cold sensitivity or pain localization (except for scrotal pain). The link between catastrophizing and NIH-CPSI was marked (r=0.61, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The correlation between the UPOINT score and NIH-CPSI was verified. A weak or lacking correlation with the studied clinical parameters suggests that further development is required before UPOINT can be considered an optimal phenotyping instrument.

Extracorporeal shock wave therapy for the treatment of chronic pelvic pain syndrome in males: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

There is no sufficiently validated therapy for chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS).

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) in 60 patients suffering from CPPS.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Sixty patients suffering from CPPS for at least 3 mo were investigated in two groups. Both groups were treated four times (once per week), each by 3000 impulses; group 2 was performed as a sham procedure. The investigation was designed as a placebo-controlled, prospectively randomised, double-blind phase 2 study. Standardised follow-up was performed 1, 4, and 12 wk after ESWT.

INTERVENTIONS

Low-energy-density ESWT was performed using a perineal approach without anaesthesia. In the placebo group, the same setting was used without shock wave energy transmission.

MEASUREMENTS

ESWT effects on pain, quality of life (QoL), erectile function (EF), and micturition were evaluated. The parameters were investigated using validated questionnaires (National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index [NIH-CPSI], International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS], International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF]) and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain evaluation.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

All patients completed outpatient treatments and follow-ups without any problems. All 30 patients in the verum group showed statistically (highly) significant improvement of pain, QoL, and voiding conditions following ESWT in comparison to the placebo group, which experienced a continuous deterioration of the same parameters during the follow-up period. Perineal ESWT was easy and safe to perform without anaesthesia or any side-effects.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first prospectively randomised, double-blind study to reveal perineal ESWT as a therapy option for CPPS with statistically significant effects in comparison to placebo. ESWT may in particular be interesting because of its easy and inexpensive application, the lack of any side-effects, and the potential for repetition of the treatment at any time.