4.3 Article

Effects of perioperative pelvic floor muscle training on early recovery of urinary continence and erectile function in men undergoing radical prostatectomy: a randomized clinical trial

期刊

INTERNATIONAL BRAZ J UROL
卷 45, 期 6, 页码 1196-1203

出版社

BRAZILIAN SOC UROL
DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2019.0238

关键词

Prostatic Neoplasms; Urinary Incontinence; Erectile Dysfunction; Quality of Life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: Radical prostatectomy (RP) can result in urinary incontinence (UI) and erectile dysfunction (ED), which negatively impact quality of life (QoL). This study aimed to evaluate the effects of a perioperative pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) program versus usual care on early recovery of urinary continence and erectile function after RP. Materials and Methods: Of 59 eligible men, 31 were randomly allocated into 2 groups: Group 1 (Control, N=15) received usual post-RP care; and Group 2 (Physical therapy, N=16) received two pre-RP physical therapist-guided PFMT sessions, including exercises and electromyographic biofeedback, and verbal and written instructions to continue PFMT until RP, which was then resumed after urethral catheter removal. The International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire - Short Form (ICIQ-SF) and the 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) questionnaire were used to evaluate UI and ED, respectively. Results: Demographic characteristics were similar in both groups. Three months after RP, the UI rate was 72.7% and 70.0% in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (P >0.05). The severity and frequency of UI and its impact on QoL were evaluated by the ICIQ-Short Form, with scores of 6.9 +/- 6.26 in Group 1 and 7.0 +/- 5.12 in Group 2 (P >0.05). The IIEF-5 scores were similar in Groups 1 and 2 (5.73 +/- 7.43 vs. 6.70 +/- 6.68, respectively) (P >0.05). Conclusion: Our pre-RP protocol of two physical therapist-assisted sessions of PFMT plus instructions did not significantly improve urinary continence or erectile function at 3 months after RP.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据