Search

Objective: To determine the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions for postprostatectomy erectile dysfunction and climacturia., Data Sources: Multiple databases were searched from database inception to February 2019., Review Methods: Randomized controlled trials comparing physiotherapy interventions to control were included., Results: The search yielded 127 potentially relevant articles; seven met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Meta-analysis of two studies revealed a statistically significant effect of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) plus biofeedback compared to the no treatment control group for erectile function at the12-month follow-up period (risk ratio (RR) = 3.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.02-13.05; P  = 0.05). Data from one small study ( n  = 31) identified a greater number of men reporting improved climacturia in the PFMT plus electrical stimulation group compared to the no treatment control group, and the overall effect was significant (RR = 15.60, 95% CI = 0.95-254.91; P  = 0.05). Meta-analyses of two studies found no statistically significant differences between groups receiving PFMT and no treatment control for erectile function or climacturia at long-term follow-up., Conclusions: PFMT augmented with biofeedback improves erectile function after prostatectomy. Data from a single study found PFMT combined with electrical stimulation to be beneficial for postprostatectomy climacturia. However, electrical stimulation is recommended for terminally ill people only. The effect of PFMT alone on postprostatectomy erectile dysfunction and climacturia remains inconclusive. However, this is likely to be affected by the participant adherence and physiotherapy supervision. High-quality trials providing intensive supervision and due consideration of adherence factors are recommended.

Background: The efficacy of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) alone and in combination with biofeedback (BFB), electrical stimulation (ES), or both for urinary incontinence in men following prostatectomy is inconclusive., Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether PFMT works well alone or in combination with BFB, ES, or both in comparison with a control., Data Sources: The databases Ovid Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science, and the specialized register of the Citroen Incontinence Review Group were searched from study inception to August 2017. Abstract proceedings from urological meetings, including the European Association of Urology and the American Urological Association, were also searched., Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials that compared PFMT alone and PFMT with ES, BFB, or both and no treatment, placebo, or sham were included in the review., Data Extraction, Synthesis, and Quality: Two independent reviewers completed data extraction and quality appraisal. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool was used for quality appraisal. Meta-analysis was done with software used for preparing and maintaining Cochrane reviews., Limitations: Methodological flaws in the included studies limited internal validity., Conclusions: PFMT alone, PFMT plus BFB and ES, and PFMT plus ES were more effective than the control for urinary incontinence following prostatectomy. The effect of PFMT plus BFB on postprostatectomy incontinence remains uncertain.