ProstaCare: Water electrolysis system for the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia

Short Podium Session

1:30 PM - 2:40 PM

Dr Wei Jin Chua (1), Dr Yongwei Lim (2), Dr Ho Yee Tiong (1), Dr Soon Phang, Allen Sim (2), Dr Sun Sien, Henry Ho (2)

(1) National University Hospital, , Singapore, (2) Singapore General Hospital, , Singapore

Established treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) with medical or surgical therapy provides symptom relief but have associated serious side effects. New technology offers treatment options which aim to minimise these side effects. The ProstaCare water electrolysis system was developed to treat BPH by creating necrosis in the lateral lobes of the prostate around the urethra. Water electrolysis is achieved by passing direct current between a pair of electrodes in tissue. This creates hydroxyl ions at the cathode and hydrogen ions at the anode. The resulting acidic and alkaline regions cause cellular necrosis. The ions created are proportional to the charge passing through the electrodes and an ion concentration gradient ensures as they diffuse through the tissue. The controlled shape and size of the concentration gradient allow for the predictable creation of necrotic treatment zones. We report our multi-centre clinical experience with ProstaCare water electrolysis treatment of prostate for BPH and the outcomes with 12 months’ follow-up.

AIMS

A total of n=49 patients with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) were recruited in a single arm study. The ProstaCare treatment catheter device was inserted per urethra using lignocaine gel as local anaesthesia. The pre and post procedure assessments included International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Quality of Life (QOL) score, and peak urinary flow rate. The duration the patient had a catheter was also recorded.

METHODS

Our patients were aged (years) median 66, range (51-86) with prostate volume (ml) median 39, range (27-54.9). They reported significant improvement in IPSS, QOL and peak urinary flow rate through 12 months after water electrolysis therapy. The mean improvement in IPSS of -9.6 was sustained from the 3 months through to the 12 months follow up (p=0.004). The mean improvement in QOL of -2.1 at 3 months reduced to -1.5 at the 12 months follow up (p=<0.001). The mean peak urinary flow rate improvement of +2.2ml/s at 3 months (p<0.001) was not sustained and reduced to +1.1ml/s at 12 months (p=0.06). Treatment failure was reported in n=3 (6%) patients. The duration of catheter insertion was (days) median 1 (range 0-6).

RESULTS

This study demonstrates that ProstaCare is a safe treatment for BPH with sustained symptomatic improvement at 12 months follow up. Water electrolysis treatment of prostate can be considered as an alternative to the use of pharmaceutical medication.

CONCLUSIONS