Saturday, January 31, 2009

“Being able to control the pain or to see a possible painless future is psychologically beneficial”

Introduction
It is easier to define what CP/CPPS is not than what it is. Despite many years of searching for obvious microbial causes to CP/CPPS none has been found. This does not mean that there are none, but the likelihood is very very small. The focus on the prostate and the visible micturition problems are likely misleading thought and effort. I would even venture to say that the dysuria is a secondaty phenomenon that obscures other more important symptoms. In a recent article doctor C Nickel asserts that “the biomedical model has failed” and that “our traditional etiologic model may not be correct” (1) it is more likely that medical science has been barking up the wrong tree altogether.

Why did I write this?
I got the diagnosis of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome, couple of years ago and was, well, quite frankly surprised that there was no known etiology, or known cure. So I just assumed the specialist was lazy and not up to date with the latest info. How wrong I realized I was about 400 medical papers later and a couple of web sites (that where not to useful) later. While reading I made notes that it occured to me I could edit and publish on a "blog". Maybe someone will find something of interest.

Topics
I aim to discuss the following topics (in no special order):
Current definition and history
Estimated prevalence
Current management and diagnosis
Healthy men and not
Symptom clusters and what those may indicate
Seasonality
General topics (sexual, mental health and comorbidities)
Current treatment and what it may indicate.
Microorganisms
Non-microbial inflammatory reactions
Neurology
Urodynamics
Muscoloskeletal
Th1/Th2 balance
Pain, brain and viscera
Psychology
Coping strategies
Visceral immunity and pain
Vitamin D, light and cold
HPA axis and vasopressin
HPG axis
Oral health, Th17 and mercury
Nutrition

Andra bloggar om , , ,
__________________
(1)Nickel C. CP/CPPS: the biomedical model has failed! So what’s next? Contemporary Urology, July 2006