Overview Symptoms Diagnosis Treatment (GCPP)How it works Non-bacterial / CPPS Pelvic floor Testimonials Patient handout

Georgiadis Chronic Prostatitis Protocol · Athens, Greece

We treat chronic prostatitis differently.

Our approach deviates from the generally accepted management of chronic prostatitis. Most of the men who come to us have already tried the conventional pathway, often in several countries, and are still ill. For them we offer a radical, microbiology-directed protocol, individually adjusted, and monitored with objective measurements at every stage.

Book a consultation See documented results

Medically reviewed by Dr Pavlos Georgiadis, Urologist · Last updated 20 September 2026

Our position

Chronic prostatitis is, in our experience, predominantly a microbial disease.

The prevailing classification places roughly nine out of ten men with chronic prostatic symptoms in the “non-bacterial” category (chronic prostatitis / chronic pelvic pain syndrome, NIH type III), for which no infection is presumed and treatment is largely symptomatic.

After decades of examining and following these patients with repeated cultures of prostatic secretion and semen, transrectal ultrasound and leukocyte counts, our clinical position is different: in the overwhelming majority of the men we see, a microbial cause can be demonstrated and treated – and the “non-bacterial” label is, in our view, very often a misdiagnosis produced by inadequate sampling and premature abandonment of antimicrobial treatment.

We state this as our clinical position, not as settled science. It is a minority view. We hold it because of what we measure in our own patients, and we show those measurements on this page.

Who comes to us

Men from all over the globe who typically have:

years of persistent symptoms – including pain, urinary symptoms, sexual dysfunction and fertility problems – despite repeated courses of antibiotics, intraprostatic injections, phage therapy, pelvic floor treatments and other interventions;
received a diagnosis of “CP/CPPS” or “non-bacterial prostatitis”;
been told that little more can be done beyond symptom management, or in some cases surgery.

Our patient population is, by its nature, heavily weighted towards refractory cases. Our results should therefore be interpreted in that context: these are predominantly patients in whom conventional approaches had already failed to produce lasting resolution.

The protocol

Aggressive by design. Adjusted to the individual.

The Georgiadis Protocol combines four treatments that work at different levels – mechanical, systemic, local – with a diagnostic loop that tells us, objectively, whether the prostate is responding.

Why each pillar exists — read how the protocol works →

Pillar 1

Prostate pressure therapy

A targeted, region-by-region manual therapy of the gland – not a prostate massage. The aim is mechanical: to open obstructed glandular ducts, drain purulent or stagnant secretions, break up organised inflammatory foci and restore circulation so that antibiotics can better reach the affected tissue. Performed daily during intensive treatment.

Pillar 2

Oral antibiotics

Selected according to the cultures and antibiograms of your prostatic secretion and semen, alongside clinical and microbiological judgement where necessary. Cultures are repeated during treatment and antibiotics adjusted when the microbiology changes.

Pillar 3

Intravenous antibiotics

Used for organisms and resistance patterns where oral agents may not achieve adequate tissue concentrations, or when antimicrobial exposure needs to be maximised during the intensive phase. They may also be used in preparation for intraprostatic injection treatment.

Pillar 4

Intraprostatic injection

Ultrasound-guided injection of a culture-directed antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory combination directly into affected regions of the gland. Performed in a hospital setting, with discharge usually within two hours on the same day. It is not a surgical operation – nothing is cut or removed.

The intensive weekly schedule (international patients)

This is the fastest version of the protocol, designed to produce results as efficiently as possible:

Prostate pressure therapy 2-3 times daily
4 days of oral antibiotics
3 days of intravenous antibiotics
1 intraprostatic injection (hospital setting, same-day discharge)
Supplementary treatments as indicated – for example shockwave therapy 2-3 times daily

Minimum recommended starting duration: 4-6 weeks, after which a break can be taken and progress reassessed. 8-12 weeks to start is better. Four weeks is very rarely enough for a permanent result: most patients need to return after a break of ideally no more than 1-2 months to complete treatment and avoid relapse – but significant improvement is usually already evident by then.

Continuous or spaced treatment – your choice, same destination

Some patients complete the protocol continuously. Others, for financial or practical reasons, space it out in blocks over many months and sometimes years. Both are legitimate. What changes is the calendar, not the goal: the total amount of treatment needed is set by the disease, so a slower rhythm means a longer overall course.

Our own records show the difference. Among patients followed with repeated ultrasound, those who kept their treatment blocks close together reached a larger volume reduction than those who spaced them with gaps of a year or more (see results). We tell every patient this honestly so they can plan.

What determines your duration: how long the disease has been present, the organisms and their resistances, established complications (calcifications, fibrosis, strictures, seminal vesicle involvement), gland size, and your response at each reassessment. The exact duration cannot be promised in advance.

How we know it is working

We do not ask you to trust our words. We measure.

Symptom questionnaires are useful, but they are subjective. Every patient in the protocol is followed with objective examinations, repeated at diagnosis, mid-treatment and at the end:

Transrectal ultrasound

Prostate volume, echotexture, calcifications, seminal vesicles – and colour-Doppler blood flow within the gland, a marker of active inflammation. Repeated frequently, so the trend is visible week by week.

Microbiology

Cultures of expressed prostatic secretion and semen, with antibiograms. Treatment is directed by these results and considered complete only when cultures are negative and stay negative.

Leukocytes

White blood cells per high-power field in prostatic secretion / semen. Our target at the end of treatment is a count at or below 10, alongside negative cultures.

Uroflowmetry

Maximum and average flow, voided volume and residual – the objective side of urinary symptoms.

A treatment is considered finished when the cultures are negative, the leukocyte count is low and the transrectal ultrasound shows a settled gland – not simply when symptoms have eased.

Documented results

What our patient records show, 2014–2026

In 2026 we audited our own clinical records — the stored ultrasound images, culture reports, uroflowmetry results and intake questionnaires from 2014 to 2026. The volume figures below describe the 618 men whose prostate was measured by transrectal ultrasound at two or more visits (3,619 examinations in all); the microbiology figures come from the laboratory reports filed alongside them. Last updated in September 2026. They are internal clinical data, not a peer-reviewed study, and we present them as such.

Up to 83% prostate volume reduction (24% on average)

Among the 618 patients with two or more measurable ultrasound examinations, prostate volume fell by 24% on average from the first to the most recent examination (on average 21 months apart). Reductions ranged up to 83%; nearly one patient in five lost more than 40% of gland volume, and among the 218 patients followed with five or more examinations the average reduction was 32%. All of it achieved non-surgically — nothing is cut, burned or removed.

97% respond within 12 weeks

Of the 337 patients re-examined 3–13 weeks after their first scan, 97% already had a smaller prostate and six in ten had lost 20% or more of its volume (23% on average). In our follow-up records, significant or complete relief of symptoms within the same window is the rule rather than the exception.

Resistant organisms, cleared

The organisms we culture are typically resistant to many of the oral antibiotics the patient has already received. Among the isolates our archive documents as cleared, nearly half were resistant to eight or more of the antibiotics tested and one in three to at least half of the panel — Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus lead the list.

Continuity matters. Patients who kept their treatment blocks close together (no gap longer than four months) showed a 25% average reduction in prostate volume, compared with 17% among patients whose treatment was interrupted by gaps of a year or more (p = 0.001).

How to read these numbers. They describe what happened to prostate volume and blood flow in patients who chose to be treated and followed here; they are not a randomised comparison against another treatment, and a smaller prostate is one objective marker among several, not a singular definition of cure. We publish these data because measurable changes in ultrasound, blood flow, microbiology and urinary function provide objective evidence of what is happening within the prostate, alongside the patient’s symptoms and quality of life.

Two patterns recur in the three cases below, and in our records generally. First, the organisms are often resistant to most of the oral antibiotics a patient has already been given — one reason those courses failed. Second, organisms frequently become detectable only as treatment progresses: once the gland begins to drain and the first organism is cleared, a second or third appears in the cultures. Both are why we re-culture throughout treatment rather than relying on a single sample at the start.

Case A — from two organisms to a clean gland, and a result that held after treatment ended

Years of pain and urinary symptoms before reaching us. Cultures at first visit grew Klebsiella pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus; leukocytes 38 per field; prostate 15.0 ml with clearly increased Doppler flow. He was treated in stages: an intensive, continuous first phase, a break, then short week-long treatment blocks — with all treatment completed by month 10. Nothing further was given after that. The examination at month 17 was a long-term follow-up, seven months after the last treatment: the prostate was unchanged at 8.8 ml, the culture negative and leukocytes 0. A further ultrasound in September 2026 — four years after the first visit and more than three years after treatment ended — found the gland at 8.9 ml. The result held without maintenance — which is what we mean when we say the protocol stands the test of time.

Case A: prostate volume at 17 transrectal ultrasound examinations over four years, 15.0 to 8.9 ml; treatment completed at month 10, follow-up examinations at month 17 and at four years show the result held — Prostate volume at each of 17 transrectal ultrasound examinations over four years (ml, as printed by the ultrasound system). 15.0 → 8.9 ml, −41%. Treatment ended at month 10; the last two points are follow-up examinations at month 17 and at four years, with no treatment in between.

Case A: leukocytes per field and culture results over 17 months, from 38 to 0, cultures positive then negative — Leukocytes per field in prostatic secretion / semen, numbered as in the table. Red markers: culture positive. Blue: no growth. Dashed line: our end-of-treatment target (≤10). Report 4 (culture positive, no count) is in the table only.

#	Month	Culture	Organisms	WBC / field
1	0	positive	Klebsiella pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus	38
2	3	positive	Klebsiella pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus	14
3	6	positive	Staphylococcus aureus	14
4	8	positive	Staphylococcus aureus	—
5	10	no growth	—	11
6–8	10–11	no growth	—	4
9	17	no growth	—	0

Klebsiella pneumoniae was resistant to 9 of the 25 antibiotics tested and Staphylococcus aureus to 11 of 21 — including every macrolide and tetracycline on the panel. The Klebsiella cleared first and was absent from month 6; the S. aureus persisted to month 8, after which five consecutive cultures were negative — the last of them at month 17, seven months after treatment had ended, with leukocytes 0.

The gland over time – the same measurement frame at four examinations

Transrectal ultrasound, first visit, prostate volume 15.0 ml — **Month 0** · 15.0 ml

Transrectal ultrasound at month 3, prostate volume 10.1 ml — **Month 3** · 10.1 ml

Transrectal ultrasound at month 10, prostate volume 8.7 ml — **Month 10** · 8.7 ml

Transrectal ultrasound at month 17, prostate volume 8.8 ml — **Month 17** · 8.8 ml — long-term follow-up, seven months after treatment ended

Blood flow inside the gland — the same sagittal view, first visit and last visit

Colour Doppler, sagittal right and left views, first visit: moderate intraprostatic flow — **First visit** · sagittal right / left · clustered periurethral and scattered intraglandular colour signal (moderate)

Colour Doppler, same sagittal views, month 8: minimal intraprostatic flow — **Month 8** · same views · a few isolated dots only (minimal)

Doppler flow within the gland, graded on the same sagittal view: moderate at the first visit → minimal at month 8. Ultrasound frames as stored by the scanner, with the identification band removed. Published with the patient’s written consent. The printed measurements (D1–D3, volume) are the scanner’s own.

Case B — 15 months, prostate volume nearly halved

Cultures at first visit: Staphylococcus hominis and Ureaplasma urealyticum; leukocytes 55 per field; prostate 25.4 ml. Treated in stages over fifteen months: an intensive first phase of a few months, then short bursts of one to three weeks with frequent re-examination — eighteen ultrasound examinations in all.

Case B: prostate volume at 18 examinations, 25.4 to 13.5 ml over 15 months, symptom relief reported at week 7 — Prostate volume at 18 examinations: 25.4 → 13.5 ml, −47%. Note the steep fall during the intensive first phase and the stable plateau through the shorter treatment bursts that followed.

Microbiology and endpoint

Month 0: Staphylococcus hominis and Ureaplasma urealyticum; leukocytes 50–60 per field
Month 3: once the first organisms were treated, a Staphylococcus epidermidis resistant to 17 of the 20 antibiotics tested (including gentamicin and amikacin) became detectable; leukocytes 25–30
Month 8: Staphylococcus aureus and S. hominis, both sensitive to the agents then in use; leukocytes 25–30
Ultrasound endpoint (month 15): volume 25.4 → 13.5 ml; Doppler flow within the gland on matched views (transverse upper/mid and right/left) moderate → minimal; calcifications on the same views multiple → few

The closing cultures after the final treatment block were taken outside the clinic archive and are not shown here.

Measurement frames at four of the eighteen examinations

Transrectal ultrasound, first visit, 25.4 ml — **Month 0** · 25.4 ml

Transrectal ultrasound at month 4, 15.9 ml — **Month 4** · 15.9 ml

Transrectal ultrasound at month 8, 13.5 ml — **Month 8** · 13.5 ml

Transrectal ultrasound at month 15, 13.5 ml — **Month 15** · 13.5 ml

Blood flow inside the gland — two matched transverse views, first visit and month 15

Colour Doppler, transverse upper and mid views, first visit: moderate flow — **First visit** · transverse upper / mid · several scattered intraglandular flow foci (moderate)

Colour Doppler, same transverse upper and mid views, month 15: minimal flow — **Month 15** · same views · minimal scattered dots, mainly peripheral

Colour Doppler, transverse right and left views, first visit — **First visit** · transverse right / left · flow greatest in the left peripheral gland (moderate)

Colour Doppler, same transverse right and left views, month 15 — **Month 15** · same views · a few isolated dots; remaining flow confined to the neurovascular bundles at the edges (minimal)

Published with the patient’s written consent. Identification band removed; scanner annotations unchanged.

Case C — nearly four years, treatment spaced out: the endpoint reached, and the cost of long gaps made visible

First visit: Staphylococcus epidermidis on culture, leukocytes 90 per field, prostate 16.3 ml. This patient was treated in blocks over 46 months — an intensive first phase, then short bursts of treatment separated by breaks of months and, at one point, more than a year — with sixteen culture reports and thirteen ultrasound examinations. He was treated with prostate pressure therapy and antibiotics only, without intraprostatic injections — a route that reaches the same endpoint, but distinctly more slowly. Four different organisms surfaced over those years. He reached the microbiological endpoint — a final negative culture with leukocytes down to 8–10 per field — but the ultrasound tells a second story worth showing honestly.

Case C: prostate volume at 13 examinations over 46 months, 16.3 to 8.8 ml then 12.1 ml, symptom relief reported at week 6 — Prostate volume at 13 examinations over 46 months: 16.3 → 8.8 ml by month 21, then a drift back towards 12 ml across a year-long gap with no treatment, before the final block. Net change −26%.

What this case teaches

Organisms changed over time. Staphylococcus epidermidis at the start (resistant to 12 of 20 agents), cleared by month 3; Klebsiella pneumoniae surfaced at month 10; Staphylococcus haemolyticus (resistant to 12 of 19) at month 34; Enterococcus faecalis (resistant to 15 of 22) together with S. aureus at month 40 — organisms that became detectable only as the gland drained and between treatment blocks
Leukocytes 80–100 → 8–10 per field; the final culture, after the last block, was negative
Volume fell fastest during the first, most intensive year, and part of the gain was lost during the longest gap
Doppler flow inside the gland on all four matched views (transverse upper/mid, lower/apex, right/left; sagittal): moderate → minimal

Spacing treatment is a legitimate choice, and so is treating without injections — this patient still finished. But the slower curve is the argument for keeping gaps short when you can — it is why we ask patients to return within one to two months rather than one to two years.

Transrectal ultrasound, first visit, 16.3 ml — **Month 0** · 16.3 ml

Transrectal ultrasound at month 21, 8.8 ml — **Month 21** · 8.8 ml — after the intensive blocks

Transrectal ultrasound at month 44, 12.3 ml — **Month 44** · 12.3 ml — after a year without treatment

Transrectal ultrasound at month 46, 12.1 ml — **Month 46** · 12.1 ml — final examination

Colour Doppler, same views, month 46: minimal flow — **Month 46** · same views · minimal scattered dots

Published with the patient’s written consent.

All three cases are real patients from our records, anonymised. Individual results vary; these cases were selected because they are well documented, not because they are typical of every patient.

Evidence and the guideline position

Intraprostatic antibiotic injection: a fifty-year-old technique.

Direct injection of antibiotics into the prostate is not an invention of this clinic. It has appeared in the peer-reviewed urological literature since the 1970s: clinical series in 1980, 1983 and 1988, ultrasound-guided injection published in The Journal of Urology in 1988, further studies in refractory prostatitis through the 1990s and 2000s, a 320-patient multicentre study in 2005, and new transrectal-ultrasound-guided series in 2018 and 2024. A review in 2004 already described the method as having been in use for more than two decades.

The pharmacological rationale is straightforward: the penetration of many antibiotics from the bloodstream into prostatic tissue is limited and variable, whereas direct injection produces local concentrations that early studies measured at hundreds to thousands of micrograms per millilitre in prostatic fluid.

Across these series, the adverse effects reported were predominantly transient and local – pain at the injection site, blood in the urine or semen for a few days – and several studies reported no major complications.

What the European guideline says – and why we still offer it

The European Association of Urology (EAU) Guideline on Urological Infections has a section on intraprostatic injection of antimicrobials. It acknowledges the published literature but states that the treatment has not been evaluated in controlled trials and should not be considered as routine therapy. The guideline’s standard recommendation for chronic bacterial prostatitis remains systemic, culture-appropriate antibiotics.

We agree that controlled trials are lacking, and we say so. We offer the injection nonetheless because the men who reach us have, almost by definition, already exhausted the guideline pathway; because the published clinical experience is consistent; because we perform it under transrectal ultrasound guidance, in a hospital setting, with sterile technique and culture-directed drug selection; and because in our own patients we see results we can measure. It is applied only after the patient has been fully informed, including of the guideline position, and has given written consent. Applying methods that are described in the international medical literature is lawful in Greece and is done here under the physician’s responsibility.

The published record, in brief

1976–1985 — Baert and colleagues (Leuven) publish the first series of local antibiotic treatment of bacterial prostatitis; Plomp (1980) measures prostatic-fluid concentrations up to 4,000 µg/mL after injection; Baert (1983) and Yamamoto (1985) document very high local concentrations, minimal discomfort and no tissue necrosis on biopsy.
1988 — Jiménez-Cruz, J Urol: 51 culture-confirmed patients, ultrasound-guided weekly injections; microbiological cure 70.5% at 3 months, 58.8% at 6 months. Baert & Leonard, J Urol: “10 years of experience” — 71% of 24 refractory patients in remission ≥6 months after one or two infiltrations.
1996–1998 — Yamamoto (Scand J Urol Nephrol): 56% complete cure with sterile cultures ≥12 months in 25 refractory patients. Mayersak (1998): 75 refractory patients, TRUS-directed gentamicin; minor complications only.
2004–2005 — El-Hakim (J Endourol) reviews two decades of intraprostatic infiltration. Zhang (2004): antibiotic chosen by culture and sensitivity, weekly ×4, 92.5% response. Guercini (Arch Ital Urol Androl): 320 patients after repeated systemic failure, ultrasound-guided infiltration in a multicentre study; 68% in the highest improvement category.
2018–2024 — Toth (77 cases) and Oishi (110 refractory patients, 81% responders, no major adverse events) report modern TRUS-guided series. Shobeirian (2021): intraprostatic amikacin at biopsy, 0% infections vs 8.6% in controls. Kawooya (2024): 131 patients followed for one year, substantial symptom and quality-of-life improvement, minimal side effects. Renaud (2024): multidrug-resistant prostatitis cleared with weekly intraprostatic amikacin + meropenem alongside IV therapy, sterile at 8 weeks, well at 2 years.

Safety, consent and what we do not claim

Radical treatment, responsibly delivered.

How injections are performed

In a hospital, under transrectal ultrasound guidance with a needle guide, into the regions of the gland where ultrasound shows disease. Antimicrobials are selected from your cultures. You are discharged the same day, normally within two hours. Typical after-effects are a few days of discomfort and, sometimes, blood in urine or semen; these settle without treatment.

Informed consent

Before any injection you receive a written explanation of the procedure, its expected benefits and risks, the alternatives, and the fact that international guidelines do not recommend it routinely because controlled trials are lacking. We proceed only with your written consent.

What we do not promise

We do not promise that every patient reaches what we define as a comprehensive cure within 8–10 weeks, and we do not claim the method is guideline-standard. What our records show is consistent, measurable improvement during treatment and a very high likelihood of meaningful symptom relief within that window. Given enough treatment time, the large majority of patients who follow the full protocol reach the stage we define as cure, and former patients returning for check-ups have shown sustained results years later.

Coming to Athens

How treatment starts

Send us your history. Previous cultures, imaging, treatments and their outcomes. We will tell you frankly whether we think we can help and what a course would probably involve.
Diagnosis in Athens (1-2 days). Transrectal and urogenital ultrasound, uroflowmetry, thorough cultures of prostatic secretion and semen with antibiograms, and more.
Intensive phase (minimum 4 weeks; 8-12 weeks preferable). The weekly schedule above, adjusted as your cultures and ultrasound evolve.
Reassessment and completion. A break, repeat examinations, and a return visit – ideally within 1-2 months – to finish treatment and consolidate the result.

Book a consultation Read about symptoms and diagnosis

Questions patients ask

Straight answers

I have been told I have “non-bacterial” prostatitis. Is it worth coming?

Yes. In more than three decades of successfully treating chronic prostatitis, we have yet to encounter a case that was genuinely non-microbial after sufficiently thorough investigation.

A negative culture does not necessarily mean that no microorganism is present. In most patients we detect the causative organisms at the first examination due to the thoroughness of our approach; in rare others, organisms become detectable on subsequent examinations as the prostate softens, obstructed ducts begin to drain and previously trapped prostatic secretions are released.

This is why we do not base a “non-bacterial” diagnosis on a single negative sample. Our investigation can include repeated cultures of expressed prostatic secretion and semen, PCR testing and next-generation sequencing (NGS), interpreted alongside the clinical and ultrasound findings. Our position is therefore different from simply accepting the label “CP/CPPS” after routine testing has been negative.

If you have been sent to pelvic floor physiotherapy instead, read why we consider the tight muscles a symptom of the infected prostate, not the disease.

Is the intraprostatic injection painful or dangerous?

At worst, it can be slightly uncomfortable rather than painful, takes minutes, and is done under ultrasound guidance in a hospital. The published series and our own experience describe mostly transient local effects – some days of discomfort, sometimes blood in urine or semen. Serious complications are rare in the literature. You will receive the full list of risks in writing before consenting.

Can I slow the protocol down?

Some patients treat continuously; others come in blocks spread over months or years. A slower rhythm means a longer total course, and our records show that long gaps (a year or more) are associated with smaller gains and a higher chance of relapse between blocks. We will tell you where the compromises lie.

How do I know when I am finished?

When your cultures are negative and stay negative, your leukocyte count is low (≤10 per field), and the transrectal ultrasound shows a settled gland with reduced blood flow – not simply when you feel better. We define the endpoint objectively so that a relapse is caught early.

Why do you use a method that guidelines do not recommend?

Because the guideline pathway is what our patients have already tried without success, because the method has a fifty-year published record of clinical use with a consistent safety profile, and because we monitor its effect objectively in every patient. We are open about the fact that randomised trials are lacking, and we would welcome them.

References

European Association of Urology. EAU Guidelines on Urological Infections, 2026 edition, section on bacterial prostatitis — “Intraprostatic injection of antimicrobials”. Arnhem: EAU Guidelines Office. uroweb.org
Baert L. Bacterial prostatitis treated by local antibiotics. Urology. 1976;8(6):644.
Plomp TA, Baert L, Maes RA. Treatment of recurrent chronic bacterial prostatitis by local injection of thiamphenicol into prostate. Urology. 1980;15:542–547.
Baert L, Mattelaer J, de Nollin P. Treatment of chronic bacterial prostatitis by local injection of antibiotics into prostate. Urology. 1983;21:370–375.
Yamamoto M, Kanai S, Natsume H. The effectiveness of a combination of trimethoprim plus rifampicin and local injection of antibiotics into the prostate in chronic bacterial prostatitis. Hinyokika Kiyo. 1985;31:441–448.
Baert L, Leonard A. Chronic bacterial prostatitis: 10 years of experience with local antibiotics. J Urol. 1988;140:755–757.
Jiménez-Cruz JF, Tormo FB, Gómez JG. Treatment of chronic prostatitis: intraprostatic antibiotic injections under echography control. J Urol. 1988;139:967–970.
Feng YP. Intraprostatic injection of azactam for chronic prostatitis. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 1991;29:687–688, 718.
Yamamoto M, Hibi H, Satoshi K, Miyake K. Chronic bacterial prostatitis treated with intraprostatic injection of antibiotics. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1996;30:199–202.
Yavaşçaoğlu I, et al. Percutaneous suprapubic transvesical route: a new and comfortable method of intraprostatic injection. Urol Int. 1998;60:229–234.
Mayersak JS. Transrectal ultrasonography directed intraprostatic injection of gentamycin-xylocaine in the management of the plateau phase of chronic non-bacterial prostatitis. Int Surg. 1998;83:347–349.
Zhang J, Yang J, He S, Zhang X. Transperineal puncture drug injection in the treatment of chronic prostatitis. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2004;10:830–831, 835.
El-Hakim A. Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: is there a role for local drug infiltration therapy? J Endourol. 2004;18:227–231.
Zvara P, Folsom JB, Plante MK. Minimally invasive therapies for prostatitis. Curr Urol Rep. 2004;5:320–326.
Guercini F, et al. Echoguided drug infiltration in chronic prostatitis: results of a multi-centre study. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2005;77:87–92.
Toth A, Guercini FM, Feldthouse DM, Zhang JC. Injection therapy for chronic prostatitis: a retrospective analysis of 77 cases. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2018;90:34–39.
Oishi M, et al. Intra-prostatic injection therapy for chronic prostatitis: a pilot study (abstract PD62-02). J Urol. 2018;199(4S):e1157.
Shobeirian F, et al. Intraprostatic prophylactic antibiotic injection in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy. Int J Urol. 2021;28:683–686.
Kawooya MG, et al. Transrectal ultrasound-guided intraprostatic injection therapy for treatment of chronic prostatitis in a Ugandan population. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med. 2024;55:209. doi:10.1186/s43055-024-01379-9
Renaud E, Nagassar RP, Persaud S. Multimodal therapy in multidrug-resistant prostatitis: a case report and review of the literature. Cureus. 2024;16:e74025.
Georgiadis Urology. Internal audit of clinic records 2020–2026 (transrectal ultrasound, microbiology, uroflowmetry). The audit is ongoing and is being prepared for submission to a peer-reviewed journal; findings will be shared on publication.

Medical disclaimer: the information on this page describes the clinical approach of Georgiadis Urology and is provided for information. It is not a substitute for individual medical advice. Outcomes described are from our own records and from the published literature cited; individual results vary and no outcome can be guaranteed. Intraprostatic antimicrobial injection is not recommended as routine therapy by current European guidelines; it is offered here to appropriately selected, fully informed patients under the responsibility of the treating physician.