OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of electromyographic (EMG) biofeedback with verbal instructions as learning tools of pelvic muscle exercises (PMEs) in the early management of urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-two consecutive patients (mean age 64 years, sd 4.2), with urinary incontinence after radical retropubic prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer, were randomized to receive biofeedback (group A, 28 men) or verbal feedback (group B, 14 men) as learning tools for PMEs immediately after catheter removal. Group A received 15 sessions of EMG biofeedback (three times weekly, 30 min each) and group B verbal instructions. Evaluation at baseline and 1, 2, 3 and 6 months included the 1-h pad-test and a questionnaire (number of pads/day and incontinence episodes). RESULTS: By the last follow-up, 27 patients had received biofeedback and 15 verbal instructions. Data were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Urine loss as assessed by the 1-h pad-test at baseline, 1, 2, 3 and 6 months was 39, 18, 7, 4 and 3 g for group A and 31, 11, 3, 1 and 0 g for group B, respectively (P > 0.05). The number of pads/day was 3.9, 3.4, 1.2, 0.8 and 0.4 for group A and 3.6, 1.8, 0.9, 0.4 and 0.2 for group B, respectively (P > 0.05). The overall continence rate at 6 months was objectively (urine loss > 1 g) 91% and subjectively (0-1 pad/day) 95%. CONCLUSION: Intensive verbal instructions and biofeedback were both very effective behavioural methods and learning tools for PMEs in the early management of urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of electromyographic (EMG) biofeedback with verbal instructions as learning tools of pelvic muscle exercises (PMEs) in the early management of urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-two consecutive patients (mean age 64 years, sd 4.2), with urinary incontinence after radical retropubic prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer, were randomized to receive biofeedback (group A, 28 men) or verbal feedback (group B, 14 men) as learning tools for PMEs immediately after catheter removal. Group A received 15 sessions of EMG biofeedback (three times weekly, 30 min each) and group B verbal instructions. Evaluation at baseline and 1, 2, 3 and 6 months included the 1-h pad-test and a questionnaire (number of pads/day and incontinence episodes). RESULTS: By the last follow-up, 27 patients had received biofeedback and 15 verbal instructions. Data were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Urine loss as assessed by the 1-h pad-test at baseline, 1, 2, 3 and 6 months was 39, 18, 7, 4 and 3 g for group A and 31, 11, 3, 1 and 0 g for group B, respectively (P > 0.05). The number of pads/day was 3.9, 3.4, 1.2, 0.8 and 0.4 for group A and 3.6, 1.8, 0.9, 0.4 and 0.2 for group B, respectively (P > 0.05). The overall continence rate at 6 months was objectively (urine loss > 1 g) 91% and subjectively (0-1 pad/day) 95%. CONCLUSION: Intensive verbal instructions and biofeedback were both very effective behavioural methods and learning tools for PMEs in the early management of urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy.
Authors: J N Nyarangi-Dix; D Schultz-Lampel; U Hohenfellner; J Huber; G Hatiboglu; N Djakovic; A Haferkamp; M Hohenfellner Journal: Urologe A Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Coral A Anderson; Muhammad Imran Omar; Susan E Campbell; Kathleen F Hunter; June D Cody; Cathryn M A Glazener Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-01-20