RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess the effectiveness and safety of magnetic stimulation (MS) for treating chronic prostatitis (CP) and chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS) through a meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive search of databases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, VIP, Web of Science, WanFang, China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc), and China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI) databases was conducted to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on MS interventions for CPPS from inception to the present. The search employed keywords such as "MS", "CPPS", and "prostatitis". Data analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software, focusing on NIH-Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI), maximal urinary flow rate (Qmax), and international index of erectile function-5 (IIEF-5) score. RESULTS: Eight RCTs involving 636 patients were included. Our meta-analysis revealed that extracorporeal MS significantly reduced NIH-CPSI scores [MD = -6.65; 95% CI (-8.15, -5.15), P < 0.00001] and improved Qmax [MD = 2.98; 95% CI (1.36, 4.59), P = 0.0003] compared to the control group. Although a trend toward improved IIEF-5 scores was observed [MD = 0.81; 95% CI (-0.34, 1.95), P = 0.17], the results were not significant. CONCLUSION: MS is effective in alleviating clinical symptoms and enhancing Qmax in patients with CP/CPPS.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical effects of nonpressure and pressure dressings on the postoperative complications of modified Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. METHODS: A total of 186 patients with grade II to III mixed hemorrhoids who had been excluded from cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases and anorectal surgery were included and randomly assigned to the nonpressure dressings group and the pressure dressings group by random number table. The incidence of acute urinary retention and medical adhesive-related skin injury, pain, hemostatic effect, anal distension, anal edema, use of analgesics, length of hospital stay, and hospitalization costs were compared between the two groups. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials checklist for randomized controlled trials was used in this study. FINDINGS: The incidence of acute urinary retention in both men and women was significantly lower in the nonpressure dressing group (relative risk [RR] = 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.13, 0.37], P = .002); (RR = 0.47, 95% CI [0.22, 0.76], P = .015). The postoperative pain at 6 hours/18 hours/25 hours was significantly lower in the nonpressure dressing group (P < .001, P = .004 < 0.05, P = .009). The anal distension at 6 hours and the number of patients who used analgesics were significantly lower in the nonpressure dressing group (P < .001). The incidence of medical adhesive-related skin injuries was significantly lower in the nonpressure dressing group (RR = 0.061, 95% CI [0.020, 0.189], P < .001). No primary bleeding was observed in both groups. However, there were no significant differences between both groups in terms of anal edema scores, length of stay, or hospitalization expenses. No adverse events were reported in either group during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Nonpressure dressings can effectively reduce the incidence of acute urinary retention and medical adhesion-related skin injury after surgery for grade III to IV mixed hemorrhoids. They can also safely relieve pain and distension.