Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /srv/users/serverpilot/apps/urologix/public/wp-content/plugins/types/vendor/toolset/types/embedded/includes/wpml.php on line 646

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /srv/users/serverpilot/apps/urologix/public/wp-content/plugins/types/vendor/toolset/types/embedded/includes/wpml.php on line 663
In-Office BPH Treatment Comparison

Warning: Use of undefined constant simple_breadcrumb - assumed 'simple_breadcrumb' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /srv/users/serverpilot/apps/urologix/public/wp-content/themes/urologix2015/upper.php on line 4

In-Office BPH Treatment Comparison

Procedure Characteristic Cooled Thermotherapy 1 Prostiva RF Therapy 2
Destroys prostatic tissue versus holding prostatic tissue out of the way
Avoids a permanent implant
Low rate of side effects
Post-treatment catheterization
Symptom improvement after 1 year
Supported by 5 year effectiveness data
< Previous Step

Patient costs are based on 20% Patient co-pay for CY2015 Non-Facility National Average Reimbursement for each procedure, based on CMS CY2015 Medicare Part B Physician Fee Schedule. Assumes maximum number of four implants as allowed under the Medicare National Correct Coding Initiative (NCCI).

1 Mynderse, L, Roehrborn, C, Partin A, Preminger G, Cote E. Results of a 5-year multicenter trial of a new generation cooled high energy transurethral microwave thermal therapy catheter for BPH. J Urol. 2011;185(5):1804-1810.

2 Hill, B, Belville W, Bruskewitz R, Issa M, Perez-Marrero R, Roehrborn C, Terris M, Naslund M. TUNA versus TURP for the treatment of symptomatic BPH: 5-year results of a prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical trial. J Urol. 2004;171(6 Pt 1):2336-2340.