Clinical Usefulness of Pelvic Floor Reeducation for Men Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
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. 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. 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. A routine prophylactic use of combined EPFR and LPFR in all patients does not seem to be justified.