Anon was faking us with the following article about TUMT and
Prostatitis
(title: Transurethral microwave thermotherapy and Penile
Enshrivellment)
2 1/2 years ago.
I tried to find this study in the medline database, but there was no
authors:

Revas DA, Baglay D, Gimella LG, Hersch IH etc.

Instead I could find the authors:

Rivas DA, Beglay D, Gomella LG, Hirsch IH etc.

with an article about TUMT (title: Transurethral microwave
thermotherapy of the prostate without intravenous sedation), you can
read below.
Is this the kind of way Anon was faking us all the time?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J Tech Urol Proc 2000 Oct;14(8):758-98

Transurethral microwave thermotherapy and Penile Enshrivellment

Revas DA, Baglay D, Gimella LG, Hersch IH, Hubirt C, Lombardi S,
McGynnis DE, Mulholland AY, Sheneok PJ, Stirup SE, Vasavadalla SP

Department of Urology, Johnson Medical College, John Thomas
University, Bucknall, UK.

[Medline record in process]

PURPOSE: Previous studies have indicated that high-energy
transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) occasionally leads to
permanent harm in a small subgroup of patients, usually those treated
for chronic nonbacterial prostatitis rather than BPH. This study was
performed to determine long-term outcomes in patients who experience
negative symptoms after TUMT using both low- and high-energy protocols
in a single United Kingdom university setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Between August 8, 1997 and October 28, 2000, 183 men (mean age 54.9
+/- 9.1 years) presenting with pain after treatment with a Prostatron
TUMT using either the low-energy Prostasoft 2.O or high- energy
Prostasoft 2.5 software. The selected patients had flacid penis
measurements taken before treatment. RESULTS: One hundred forty-eight
men (mean age 55 +/- 9.2 years) who had mild pain had a diminution in
penile size of 2-2.5 cm, and 32 men (mean age 55.1 +/- 9.2 years) with
moderate pain had both a shortening in penis length as well as a
degree of enshrivellment ranging from 0.5 to 1.0 cm in circumference
compared to pre-treatment measurements. All but two patients retained
penile attachment, although the two patients with severe pain who lost
their penises each had successful plastic surgery to attach a
prosthetic penis. One patient experienced penis loss, intolerable
rectal spasm, facial tics, incontinence and eventual death.
CONCLUSIONS: Some patients will experience severe sequelae such as
total penis loss after the TUMT procedure. However, this may be
regarded as an allowable adverse reaction given the small numbers
involved. Older, overweight patients who had the treatment for
prostatitis seem most at risk. [Study funded by Urosinge TUMT
Technologies Ltd.]

PMID: 1108567, UI: 2057964

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transurethral microwave thermotherapy of the prostate without
intravenous sedation: results of a single United States center using
both low- and high-energy protocols. TJUH TUMT Study Group.

Tech Urol 2000 Dec;6(4):282-7    (ISSN: 1079-3259)
Rivas DA; Bagley D; Gomella LG; Hirsch IH; Hubert C; Lombardo S;
McGinnis DE; Mulholland SG; Shenot PJ; Strup SE; Vasavada SP
Department of Urology, Jefferson Medical College, Thomas Jefferson
University, Philadelphia 19107, USA.

PURPOSE:
Previous studies have indicated that high-energy transurethral
microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) requires intravenous (IV) sedation
and/or narcotics for patient tolerance. This study was performed to
determine tolerability, patient acceptance, and efficacy of TUMT using
both low- and high-energy protocols in a single United States
university setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Between August 11, 1997 and October 28, 1999, 210 men (mean age 64.9
+/- 9.1 years) presenting with symptomatic benign prostatic
hyperplasia (BPH) received treatment with a Prostatron TUMT using
either the low-energy Prostasoft 2.O or high-energy Prostasoft 2.5
software. Each patient had digital rectal examination and
prostate-specific antigen level consistent with BPH, American
Urological Association symptom score > or = 15, and Qmax <15 mL/s.
Each patient received TUMT with only ibuprofen 400 mg by mouth (PO),
lorazepam 1.0 mg PO, and ketorolac 30 mg intramuscularly (IM) prior to
TUMT. A few patients who were concerned about limited pain threshold
received oxycodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg PO. Of 210 patients
treated, 12-month efficacy data were available for analysis in 80
patients.

RESULTS:
Forty-eight men (mean age 65 +/- 9.2 years) received low-energy 2.0
software TUMT, and 32 men (mean age 65.1 +/- 9.2 years) were treated
with high-energy 2.5 software. Mean prostatic volume was 44.3 +/- 23.9
mL and 60.7 +/- 26.4 mL for the 2.0 and 2.5 groups, respectively. Mean
energy delivered was 108.8 +/- 50.4 kJ and 173.1 +/- 41.1 kJ for the
2.0 and 2.5 treatment groups, respectively. International Prostate
Symptom Score decreased from 23 pre-TUMT to 8 post-TUMT and 21
pre-TUMT to 10 post-TUMT at 12 months in the 2.0 and 2.5 groups,
respectively. Mean peak flow rate improved 31.9% from 9.1 mL/s
pre-TUMT to 12.0 mL/s post-TUMT and 45.8% from 9.6 mL/s pre-TUMT to
14.0 mL/s post-TUMT at 12 months in the 2.0 and 2.5 groups,
respectively. All but two patients tolerated treatment without IV
sedation. One patient experienced intolerable rectal spasm, and
treatment was terminated in another patient because of poorly
controlled hypertension.

CONCLUSIONS:
Patients can be treated safely with TUMT using either low or high
energy, with almost universal patient tolerance and without the need
for IV sedation or narcotics, if they premedicated effectively using a
PO/IM regimen. Patients experience significant relief of symptoms
whether low- or high-energy TUMT is used; however, high-energy TUMT
improves flow rate to a greater extent than does low-energy therapy.

PMID: 0011108567