Jürgen Pannek1, Jens E König. 1. Urologische Klinik der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Marienhospital Herne, Herne, Deutschland. juergen.pannek@marienhospital-herne.de
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy is a significant clinical problem. We evaluated the clinical usefulness of early-onset pelvic floor reeducation (EPFR) as compared with later-onset pelvic floor reeducation (LPFR) in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The continence status of 132 consecutive patients who underwent retropubic radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer was assessed 1 year later by a standardized questionnaire. Fifty-eight patients started EPFR 7 days after surgery. Fifty-five patients attended LPFR 4 weeks after surgery. Forty-six patients received no pelvic floor retraining, 28 attended LPFR without EPFR, 27 patients received EPFR and LPFR, and 31 patients attended EPFR without LPFR. RESULTS: Overall, 87 men were continent, 37 patients felt moderately incontinent, and 8 men suffered from severe incontinence. We could not observe a statistically significant influence of any kind of pelvic floor reeducation on continence status, time to continence, frequency or volume of urine loss, or the use of pads. CONCLUSION: A routine prophylactic use of combined EPFR and LPFR in all patients does not seem to be justified.
INTRODUCTION: Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy is a significant clinical problem. We evaluated the clinical usefulness of early-onset pelvic floor reeducation (EPFR) as compared with later-onset pelvic floor reeducation (LPFR) in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The continence status of 132 consecutive patients who underwent retropubic radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer was assessed 1 year later by a standardized questionnaire. Fifty-eight patients started EPFR 7 days after surgery. Fifty-five patients attended LPFR 4 weeks after surgery. Forty-six patients received no pelvic floor retraining, 28 attended LPFR without EPFR, 27 patients received EPFR and LPFR, and 31 patients attended EPFR without LPFR. RESULTS: Overall, 87 men were continent, 37 patients felt moderately incontinent, and 8 men suffered from severe incontinence. We could not observe a statistically significant influence of any kind of pelvic floor reeducation on continence status, time to continence, frequency or volume of urine loss, or the use of pads. CONCLUSION: A routine prophylactic use of combined EPFR and LPFR in all patients does not seem to be justified.
Authors: Elżbieta Rajkowska-Labon; Stanisław Bakuła; Marek Kucharzewski; Zbigniew Sliwiński Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2014-04-24 Impact factor: 3.411