Evaluation of an At-Home-Use Prostate Massage Device for Men with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms

Jillian L. Capodice, Brian A. Stone , Aaron E. Katz*
Department of Urology, Columbia University Medical Center, NY, USA

Article Metrics

CrossRef Citations:
Total Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 111547
Abstract HTML Views: 16065
PDF Downloads: 2844
ePub Downloads: 1035
Total Views/Downloads: 131491
Unique Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 73867
Abstract HTML Views: 9996
PDF Downloads: 1906
ePub Downloads: 668
Total Views/Downloads: 86437

Creative Commons License
© Vachharajani and Vachharajani; Licensee Bentham Open.

open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestrictive use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

* Address correspondence to this author at the Department of Urology, Columbia University Medical Center, 161 Fort Washington Avenue, Department of Urology, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10032, USA; Tel: 212-305-6408; Fax: 212-305-0106; E-mail:



Treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) or chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) are difficult for both the patient and the clinician. In office prostatic massage has been documented to provide symptom relief but use of at-home massage has not been determined. We performed a retrospective analysis of data from men utilizing an at-home-use prostate device to examine disease, treatment characteristics, and symptom relief in order to ascertain whether evidence exists to perform a clinical trial.


Data on 154 consecutive men was reviewed and subjects evaluated in two Groups, BPH w/ LUTS (Group 1) and CP/CPPS w/ LUTS (Group 2). All subjects completed the National Institutes of Health, Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (CPSI) at baseline and follow-up. Demographics, scores on the CPSI, duration of device use, self-reported symptom assessment, and comments were analyzed.


Of 154 men, 115 were analyzed. Of the 115, 90 (78.3%) were in Group 1 (BPH w/LUTS) and 25 (21.7%) were in Group 2 (CP/CPPS w/LUTS). The average age was 64.48 years 10.86 (average SD) vs 46.68 12.5 (Group 1 - 2, respectively). In Group 1 total CPSI score from baseline to follow-up were (11.61 7.07 (mean SD) - 6.63 5.20, p = 0.0001). In Group 2 total scores from baseline to follow-up were (16.67 7.0 vs 11.48 5.84 (5.20, p = 0.0127). Other self-reported comments included 16/115 (13.9%) of subjects unsure about proper use/application and 10/115 (8.6%) reporting rectal soreness.


The preliminary findings suggest that a clinical trial of a novel at-home-use prostatic massage device is warranted.

Keywords: : Prostate device, non-conventional treatment, LUTS, BPH, CP/CPPS.