The therapeutic effect of pelvic floor muscle exercise on urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis

• Published in: Asian journal of andrology Vol. 21; no. 2; pp. 170 - 176
• Main Authors: Wu, Mei-Li-Yang, Wang, Cheng-Shuang, Xiao, Qi, Peng, Chao-Hua, Zeng, Tie-Ying
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: China Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd 01.03.2019; Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd; Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
• Subjects: Bias; Collaboration; Health aspects; Humans; Incontinence; Male; Meta-analysis; Muscle, Skeletal - physiopathology; Original; Pelvic Floor - physiopathology; Physical Therapy Modalities; Prostate cancer; Prostatectomy - adverse effects; Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery; Sensitivity analysis; Studies; Surgery; Systematic review; Therapists; Therapy; Treatment Outcome; Urinary incontinence; Urinary Incontinence - etiology; Urinary Incontinence - therapy; Urological surgery; continence rate; radical prostatectomy; pelvic floor muscle exercise; urinary incontinence
• ISSN: 1008-682X; 1745-7262; 1745-7262
• DOI: 10.4103/aja.aja_89_18

Pelvic floor muscle exercise (PFME) is the most common conservative management for urinary incontinence (UI) after radical prostatectomy (RP). However, whether the PFME guided by a therapist (G-PFME) can contribute to the recovery of urinary continence for patients after RP is still controversial. We performed this meta-analysis to investigate the effectiveness of G-PFME on UI after RP and to explore whether the additional preoperative G-PFME is superior to postoperative G-PFME alone. Literature search was conducted on Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed, to obtain all relevant randomized controlled trials published before March 1, 2018. Outcome data were pooled and analyzed with Review Manager 5.3 to compare the continence rates of G-PFME with control and to compare additional preoperative G-PFME with postoperative G-PFME. Twenty-two articles with 2647 patients were included. The continence rates of G-PFME were all superior to control at different follow-up time points, with the odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) of 2.79 (1.53-5.07), 2.80 (1.87-4.19), 2.93 (1.19-7.22), 4.11 (2.24-7.55), and 2.41 (1.33-4.36) at 1 month, 3 months, 4 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery, respectively. However, there was no difference between additional preoperative G-PFME and postoperative G-PFME, with the OR (95% CI) of 1.70 (0.56-5.11) and 1.35 (0.41-4.40) at 1 month and 3 months after RP, respectively. G-PFME could improve the recovery of urinary continence at both early and long-term stages. Starting the PFME preoperatively might not produce extra benefits for patients at early stage, compared with postoperative PFME.