PURPOSE: We analyzed the benefit of the early combined use of functional pelvic floor electrical stimulation and biofeedback in terms of time to recovery and rate of continence after radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 60 consecutive patients who underwentradical prostatectomy were included in the study. Patients were prospectively randomized to a treatment group (group 1) vs a control group (group 2). In group 1 a program of pelvic floor electrical stimulation plus biofeedback began 7 days after catheter removal, twice a week for 6 weeks. Each of the 12 treatment sessions was composed of biofeedback (15 minutes) followed by pelvic floor electrical stimulation (20 minutes). The evaluation of continence was performed at time 0, at 2 and 4 weeks, and at 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 months during followup. Evaluations were performed using the 24-hour pad test and the incontinence section of the International Continence Society questionnaire. RESULTS: The mean leakage weight became significantly lower (p <0.05) in group 1 than in group 2 starting at 4 weeks until 6 months of followup. A significant difference (p <0.05) between groups 1 and 2 in terms of percentage of continent patients was achieved from 4 weeks (63.3% group 1 and 30.0% group 2) to 6 months (96.7% group 1 and 66.7% group 2). CONCLUSIONS: Early, noninvasive physical treatment with biofeedback and pelvic floor electrical stimulation has a significant positive impact on the early recovery of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: We analyzed the benefit of the early combined use of functional pelvic floor electrical stimulation and biofeedback in terms of time to recovery and rate of continence after radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 60 consecutive patients who underwent radical prostatectomy were included in the study. Patients were prospectively randomized to a treatment group (group 1) vs a control group (group 2). In group 1 a program of pelvic floor electrical stimulation plus biofeedback began 7 days after catheter removal, twice a week for 6 weeks. Each of the 12 treatment sessions was composed of biofeedback (15 minutes) followed by pelvic floor electrical stimulation (20 minutes). The evaluation of continence was performed at time 0, at 2 and 4 weeks, and at 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 months during followup. Evaluations were performed using the 24-hour pad test and the incontinence section of the International Continence Society questionnaire. RESULTS: The mean leakage weight became significantly lower (p <0.05) in group 1 than in group 2 starting at 4 weeks until 6 months of followup. A significant difference (p <0.05) between groups 1 and 2 in terms of percentage of continent patients was achieved from 4 weeks (63.3% group 1 and 30.0% group 2) to 6 months (96.7% group 1 and 66.7% group 2). CONCLUSIONS: Early, noninvasive physical treatment with biofeedback and pelvic floor electrical stimulation has a significant positive impact on the early recovery of urinary continence 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: Patricia S Goode; Kathryn L Burgio; Theodore M Johnson; Olivio J Clay; David L Roth; Alayne D Markland; Jeffrey H Burkhardt; Muta M Issa; L Keith Lloyd Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-01-12 Impact factor: 56.272
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