PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J P Maugenest

Publications and source records attributed to J P Maugenest.

3 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1990

[Treatment of prostatic obstruction using localized hyperthermia. A preliminary study].

The LDMWH (Promeditech 2000), a hyperthermia apparatus emitting microwaves with a frequency of 915 MHz, has been used since July 1988 in the Urology Department of Hôpital Cochin and the Polyclinic of Montreuil for the treatment of prostatic obstructions. Patients are selected on the basis of objective criteria (flowmetry, post-micturating residue) and subjective criteria (standard clinical history). Only patients with objective obstruction are treated by localized hyperthermia, which constitutes a real alternative to surgery. Treatment is performed as an outpatient procedure without anaesthesia as one one-hour session per week for a period of six weeks. The results are evaluated one and three months after completion of treatment by assessing the same objective and subjective criteria as before treatment. The results of the first 26 patients with sufficient follow-up reveals 45% good objective results and 65% good subjective results.

Aged↗
PubMed1989

[Benign prostatic hypertrophy. Treatment using local hyperthermia].

The authors have used local hyperthermia in the treatment of benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH). The "Promeditech" device consists of a computer-controlled microwave hyperthermia system which warms up the prostate through a probe inserted into the rectum. Forty-three patients aged from 57 to 81 years were treated. All presented with severe voiding symptoms and were considered for surgery. Treatment was applied once a weeks for 5 weeks without anaesthesia and on an out-patient basis. At each session, hyperthermia was maintained at 42.5 to 43.5 degrees C for 60 minutes. Objective and subjective criteria for treatment were: post-voiding residual volume, voided volume, maximum flow rate and frequency, urgency, dysuria and nocturia respectively. These parameters were determined for all patients before and after treatment. Results were evaluated at 3 months and 6 months. Objective improvement was observed in 45 p. 100 of the patients, and subjective improvement in 58 p. 100. In 4 out of 5 patients fitted with an in-dwelling catheter for more than 3 months, it was possible to remove the catheter. This procedure must be more widely tested, but it seems to be particularly appropriate for two kinds of patients: those who do not accept retrograde ejaculation and those who are considered poor surgical risks.

Aged↗