I'm not going to highlight the urological community's latest efforts in regard to CPPS/PM, since I find them increasingly irrelevant and mired in the past. I see there is some attempt to whitewash some big pharma drugs (Elmiron) that have previously proved ineffective, and some attempt to keep the tired bacterial theories chugging along, and more (essentially worthless) stuff going on.
It may be time to start ignoring the urologists!
I'll put some of the slightly interesting abstracts up here later for your perusal. Here's one I found the most interesting, showing excellent results for just one month's treatment:
Presentation Title:
THE Stanford/Wise-Anderson Protocol FOR MALE PELVIC PAIN: INTEGRATION OF MYOFASCIAL TRIGGER POINT RELEASE AND PARADOXICAL RELAXATION TRAINING
Rodney U Anderson*, David Wise, Sebastopol, CA, Christine Chan, Stanford, CA; Timothy Sawyer, Los Gatos, CA
Introduction and Objective: Perspective on the neurobehavioral component of the etiology of chronic prostatitis (CP) and chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS) is emerging. We evaluated a new approach to treatment of CP/CPPS with the Stanford University-developed protocol using myofascial muscular release therapy (MFRT) in conjunction with cognitive behavior paradoxical relaxation therapy (PRT).
Methods: A total of 138 men with CP/CPPS (median duration 31 months) refractory to traditional therapy were treated for at least one month with the Stanford/Wise-Anderson Protocol as their sole treatment by a team comprised of an urologist, physiotherapist and psychologist. Physiotherapy of the pelvic floor musculature was given weekly. Patients received individual instruction at weekly intervals for up to 8 weeks in progressive relaxation exercises to achieve specific relaxation of the pelvic floor. Daily home practice relaxation sessions were recommended using a series of instructional audiotapes. Symptoms were assessed with two instruments, a Pelvic Pain Syndrome Survey (PPSS) and NIH-Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI). Patient-reported perceptions of overall effects of therapy were documented on a Global Response Assessment (GRA) questionnaire.
Results: More than half of patients treated with MFRT/PRT had clinical improvements, a ³25% decrease in pain and urinary symptom scores assessed by the PPSS. For those at the ³50% improvement level, median scores decreased 69% and 80% for pain and urinary symptoms, respectively. Both scores decreased significantly by a median of 8 points when the ³25% improvement was first observed; after a median of 5 MFRTs (range 1-30). GRAs of markedly improved or moderately improved, considered clinical successes, were reported by 72% of patients. Both the PPSS and NIH-CPSI showed similar levels of improvement after MFRT/PRT. The median pretreatment NIH-CPSI total score of 24 decreased a median of 11 points (46%, p<0.001) and 8 points (24%, p=0.008) for patients markedly and moderately improved, respectively.
Conclusions: This case study analysis indicates that MFRT combined with PRT provides an effective alternative or complimentary therapeutic approach for management of patients with CP/CPPS, providing pain and urinary symptom relief comparable to traditional therapy.
