Cooled ThermoTherapy vs. PVP

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Bruce J - 19 Sep 2005 23:36 GMT

My uro is recommending Cooled ThermoTherapy. He has the equipment and
I have a feeling that is why he is recommending it vs. PVP. Seem to me
that PVP is a less painful precedure with similar success. Has anyone
else had to make the decision on which way to go?

Reply to this Message

Bruce J - 19 Sep 2005 23:38 GMT

Can anyone recommend a uro for PVP in Marin County or San Francisco?

Reply to this Message

joggernut - 20 Sep 2005 22:42 GMT

had pvp done 2 yrs ago. very happy with results.
prior to that had looked into wit (water induced thermotherapy). rep said
they were having some trouble getting medicare approval; never got back to
me.

> My uro is recommending Cooled ThermoTherapy. He has the equipment and
> I have a feeling that is why he is recommending it vs. PVP. Seem to me
> that PVP is a less painful precedure with similar success. Has anyone
> else had to make the decision on which way to go?

Reply to this Message

Pat C - 24 Sep 2005 22:34 GMT

I had Thermatrx DOT (TUMT) in June 04, then had catheter for 1 week but the
minor result only lasted for 2 months. Just had PVP on 8/17/05 by Dr. Te in
New York Presbyterian hospital, then had a catheter only 18 hours. My peak
flow is 35 ml/s now vs. <<5ml/s before. There was no pain at all but a
little uncomfortable after surgery for a few days. So, to me, PVP is no
painful with opposite results against TUMT.

Reply to this Message