Conservative management for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence

Coral A. Anderson, Muhammad Imran Omar, Susan E. Campbell (Corresponding Author), Kathleen F. Hunter, June D. Cody, Cathryn M. A. Glazener

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)
7 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence is common after radical prostatectomy and can also occur in some circumstances after transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Conservative management includes pelvic floor muscle training with or without biofeedback, electrical stimulation, extra-corporeal magnetic innervation (ExMI), compression devices (penile clamps), lifestyle changes, or a combination of methods.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of conservative management for urinary incontinence up to 12 months after transurethral, suprapubic, laparoscopic, radical retropubic or perineal prostatectomy, including any single conservative therapy or any combination of conservative therapies.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register (5 February 2014), CENTRAL (2014, Issue 1), EMBASE (January 2010 to Week 3 2014), CINAHL (January 1982 to 18 January 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (both searched 29 January 2014), and the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating conservative interventions for urinary continence in men after prostatectomy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two or more review authors assessed the methodological quality of the trials and abstracted data. We tried to contact several authors of included studies to obtain extra information.

MAIN RESULTS: Fifty trials met the inclusion criteria, 45 in men after radical prostatectomy, four trials after TURP and one trial after either operation. The trials included 4717 men of whom 2736 had an active conservative intervention. There was considerable variation in the interventions, populations and outcome measures. Data were not available for many of the pre-stated outcomes. Men's symptoms improved over time irrespective of management.There was no evidence from eight trials that pelvic floor muscle training with or without biofeedback was better than control for men who had urinary incontinence up to 12 months after radical prostatectomy; the quality of the evidence was judged to be moderate (for example 57% with urinary incontinence in the intervention group versus 62% in the control group, risk ratio (RR) for incontinence after 12 months 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.22). One large multi-centre trial of one-to-one therapy showed no difference in any urinary or quality of life outcome measures and had narrow CIs. It seems unlikely that men benefit from one-to-one PFMT therapy after TURP. Individual small trials provided data to suggest that electrical stimulation, external magnetic innervation, or combinations of treatments might be beneficial but the evidence was limited. Amongst trials of conservative treatment for all men after radical prostatectomy, aimed at both treatment and prevention, there was moderate evidence of an overall benefit from pelvic floor muscle training versus control management in terms of reduction of urinary incontinence (for example 10% with urinary incontinence after one year in the intervention groups versus 32% in the control groups, RR for urinary incontinence 0.32, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.51). However, this finding was not supported by other data from pad tests. The findings should be treated with caution because the risk of bias assessment showed methodological limitations. Men in one trial were more satisfied with one type of external compression device, which had the lowest urine loss, compared to two others or no treatment. The effect of other conservative interventions such as lifestyle changes remained undetermined as no trials involving these interventions were identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The value of the various approaches to conservative management of postprostatectomy incontinence after radical prostatectomy remains uncertain. The evidence is conflicting and therefore rigorous, adequately powered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which abide by the principles and recommendations of the CONSORT statement are still needed to obtain a definitive answer. The trials should be robustly designed to answer specific well constructed research questions and include outcomes which are important from the patient's perspective in decision making and are also relevant to the healthcare professionals. Long-term incontinence may be managed by an external penile clamp, but there are safety problems.

Original languageEnglish
Article numberCD001843
Number of pages250
JournalCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Issue number1
Early online date20 Jan 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

Urinary Incontinence
Prostatectomy
Transurethral Resection of Prostate
Pelvic Floor
Muscles
Electric Stimulation
Life Style
Randomized Controlled Trials
Odds Ratio
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Confidence Intervals
Time Management
Therapeutics
Equipment and Supplies
Control Groups
Conservative Treatment
Registries
Decision Making
Quality of Life
Clinical Trials

Cite this

Conservative management for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence. / Anderson, Coral A.; Omar, Muhammad Imran; Campbell, Susan E. (Corresponding Author); Hunter, Kathleen F.; Cody, June D.; Glazener, Cathryn M. A.

In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, No. 1, CD001843, 2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{81e73716b91a462f8757be2a80ce2989,
title = "Conservative management for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence is common after radical prostatectomy and can also occur in some circumstances after transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Conservative management includes pelvic floor muscle training with or without biofeedback, electrical stimulation, extra-corporeal magnetic innervation (ExMI), compression devices (penile clamps), lifestyle changes, or a combination of methods.OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of conservative management for urinary incontinence up to 12 months after transurethral, suprapubic, laparoscopic, radical retropubic or perineal prostatectomy, including any single conservative therapy or any combination of conservative therapies.SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register (5 February 2014), CENTRAL (2014, Issue 1), EMBASE (January 2010 to Week 3 2014), CINAHL (January 1982 to 18 January 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (both searched 29 January 2014), and the reference lists of relevant articles.SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating conservative interventions for urinary continence in men after prostatectomy.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two or more review authors assessed the methodological quality of the trials and abstracted data. We tried to contact several authors of included studies to obtain extra information.MAIN RESULTS: Fifty trials met the inclusion criteria, 45 in men after radical prostatectomy, four trials after TURP and one trial after either operation. The trials included 4717 men of whom 2736 had an active conservative intervention. There was considerable variation in the interventions, populations and outcome measures. Data were not available for many of the pre-stated outcomes. Men's symptoms improved over time irrespective of management.There was no evidence from eight trials that pelvic floor muscle training with or without biofeedback was better than control for men who had urinary incontinence up to 12 months after radical prostatectomy; the quality of the evidence was judged to be moderate (for example 57{\%} with urinary incontinence in the intervention group versus 62{\%} in the control group, risk ratio (RR) for incontinence after 12 months 0.85, 95{\%} confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.22). One large multi-centre trial of one-to-one therapy showed no difference in any urinary or quality of life outcome measures and had narrow CIs. It seems unlikely that men benefit from one-to-one PFMT therapy after TURP. Individual small trials provided data to suggest that electrical stimulation, external magnetic innervation, or combinations of treatments might be beneficial but the evidence was limited. Amongst trials of conservative treatment for all men after radical prostatectomy, aimed at both treatment and prevention, there was moderate evidence of an overall benefit from pelvic floor muscle training versus control management in terms of reduction of urinary incontinence (for example 10{\%} with urinary incontinence after one year in the intervention groups versus 32{\%} in the control groups, RR for urinary incontinence 0.32, 95{\%} CI 0.20 to 0.51). However, this finding was not supported by other data from pad tests. The findings should be treated with caution because the risk of bias assessment showed methodological limitations. Men in one trial were more satisfied with one type of external compression device, which had the lowest urine loss, compared to two others or no treatment. The effect of other conservative interventions such as lifestyle changes remained undetermined as no trials involving these interventions were identified.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The value of the various approaches to conservative management of postprostatectomy incontinence after radical prostatectomy remains uncertain. The evidence is conflicting and therefore rigorous, adequately powered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which abide by the principles and recommendations of the CONSORT statement are still needed to obtain a definitive answer. The trials should be robustly designed to answer specific well constructed research questions and include outcomes which are important from the patient's perspective in decision making and are also relevant to the healthcare professionals. Long-term incontinence may be managed by an external penile clamp, but there are safety problems.",
author = "Anderson, {Coral A.} and Omar, {Muhammad Imran} and Campbell, {Susan E.} and Hunter, {Kathleen F.} and Cody, {June D.} and Glazener, {Cathryn M. A.}",
note = "Katherine Moore was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Leverhulme Trust, London, England in 1998 thereby allowing the time for the original review (first published 1998). Authors of nine trials (Burgio 2006; Dubbelman 2004; Filocamo 2005; Floratos 2002; Glazener RP 2011; Glazener TURP 2011; Hoffman 2005, Joseph 2000; Wille 2003) generously shared further data so that their trials could be included in this review. We thank Neil Scott for the translation of a German language article (arranged by Sheila Wallace) as well as Matthew Tripp for another. Peter Herbison provided expertise in the area of statistics and assisted in interpreting data provided by authors. For the 2014 update of the review, the review authors would like to acknowledge Ying Hao for the translation of two Chinese language articles. Authors of five trials (Dijkstra‐Eshuis 2013; Fode 2014; Geraerts 2013; Hou 2013; Park 2012; Tienforti 2012) kindly provided further data. The review authors would also like to acknowledge Katherine Moore for her contribution to the previous versions of the review.",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1002/14651858.CD001843.pub5",
language = "English",
journal = "Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews",
issn = "1469-493X",
publisher = "Wiley",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Conservative management for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence

AU - Anderson, Coral A.

AU - Omar, Muhammad Imran

AU - Campbell, Susan E.

AU - Hunter, Kathleen F.

AU - Cody, June D.

AU - Glazener, Cathryn M. A.

N1 - Katherine Moore was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Leverhulme Trust, London, England in 1998 thereby allowing the time for the original review (first published 1998). Authors of nine trials (Burgio 2006; Dubbelman 2004; Filocamo 2005; Floratos 2002; Glazener RP 2011; Glazener TURP 2011; Hoffman 2005, Joseph 2000; Wille 2003) generously shared further data so that their trials could be included in this review. We thank Neil Scott for the translation of a German language article (arranged by Sheila Wallace) as well as Matthew Tripp for another. Peter Herbison provided expertise in the area of statistics and assisted in interpreting data provided by authors. For the 2014 update of the review, the review authors would like to acknowledge Ying Hao for the translation of two Chinese language articles. Authors of five trials (Dijkstra‐Eshuis 2013; Fode 2014; Geraerts 2013; Hou 2013; Park 2012; Tienforti 2012) kindly provided further data. The review authors would also like to acknowledge Katherine Moore for her contribution to the previous versions of the review.

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence is common after radical prostatectomy and can also occur in some circumstances after transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Conservative management includes pelvic floor muscle training with or without biofeedback, electrical stimulation, extra-corporeal magnetic innervation (ExMI), compression devices (penile clamps), lifestyle changes, or a combination of methods.OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of conservative management for urinary incontinence up to 12 months after transurethral, suprapubic, laparoscopic, radical retropubic or perineal prostatectomy, including any single conservative therapy or any combination of conservative therapies.SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register (5 February 2014), CENTRAL (2014, Issue 1), EMBASE (January 2010 to Week 3 2014), CINAHL (January 1982 to 18 January 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (both searched 29 January 2014), and the reference lists of relevant articles.SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating conservative interventions for urinary continence in men after prostatectomy.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two or more review authors assessed the methodological quality of the trials and abstracted data. We tried to contact several authors of included studies to obtain extra information.MAIN RESULTS: Fifty trials met the inclusion criteria, 45 in men after radical prostatectomy, four trials after TURP and one trial after either operation. The trials included 4717 men of whom 2736 had an active conservative intervention. There was considerable variation in the interventions, populations and outcome measures. Data were not available for many of the pre-stated outcomes. Men's symptoms improved over time irrespective of management.There was no evidence from eight trials that pelvic floor muscle training with or without biofeedback was better than control for men who had urinary incontinence up to 12 months after radical prostatectomy; the quality of the evidence was judged to be moderate (for example 57% with urinary incontinence in the intervention group versus 62% in the control group, risk ratio (RR) for incontinence after 12 months 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.22). One large multi-centre trial of one-to-one therapy showed no difference in any urinary or quality of life outcome measures and had narrow CIs. It seems unlikely that men benefit from one-to-one PFMT therapy after TURP. Individual small trials provided data to suggest that electrical stimulation, external magnetic innervation, or combinations of treatments might be beneficial but the evidence was limited. Amongst trials of conservative treatment for all men after radical prostatectomy, aimed at both treatment and prevention, there was moderate evidence of an overall benefit from pelvic floor muscle training versus control management in terms of reduction of urinary incontinence (for example 10% with urinary incontinence after one year in the intervention groups versus 32% in the control groups, RR for urinary incontinence 0.32, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.51). However, this finding was not supported by other data from pad tests. The findings should be treated with caution because the risk of bias assessment showed methodological limitations. Men in one trial were more satisfied with one type of external compression device, which had the lowest urine loss, compared to two others or no treatment. The effect of other conservative interventions such as lifestyle changes remained undetermined as no trials involving these interventions were identified.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The value of the various approaches to conservative management of postprostatectomy incontinence after radical prostatectomy remains uncertain. The evidence is conflicting and therefore rigorous, adequately powered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which abide by the principles and recommendations of the CONSORT statement are still needed to obtain a definitive answer. The trials should be robustly designed to answer specific well constructed research questions and include outcomes which are important from the patient's perspective in decision making and are also relevant to the healthcare professionals. Long-term incontinence may be managed by an external penile clamp, but there are safety problems.

AB - BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence is common after radical prostatectomy and can also occur in some circumstances after transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Conservative management includes pelvic floor muscle training with or without biofeedback, electrical stimulation, extra-corporeal magnetic innervation (ExMI), compression devices (penile clamps), lifestyle changes, or a combination of methods.OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of conservative management for urinary incontinence up to 12 months after transurethral, suprapubic, laparoscopic, radical retropubic or perineal prostatectomy, including any single conservative therapy or any combination of conservative therapies.SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register (5 February 2014), CENTRAL (2014, Issue 1), EMBASE (January 2010 to Week 3 2014), CINAHL (January 1982 to 18 January 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (both searched 29 January 2014), and the reference lists of relevant articles.SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating conservative interventions for urinary continence in men after prostatectomy.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two or more review authors assessed the methodological quality of the trials and abstracted data. We tried to contact several authors of included studies to obtain extra information.MAIN RESULTS: Fifty trials met the inclusion criteria, 45 in men after radical prostatectomy, four trials after TURP and one trial after either operation. The trials included 4717 men of whom 2736 had an active conservative intervention. There was considerable variation in the interventions, populations and outcome measures. Data were not available for many of the pre-stated outcomes. Men's symptoms improved over time irrespective of management.There was no evidence from eight trials that pelvic floor muscle training with or without biofeedback was better than control for men who had urinary incontinence up to 12 months after radical prostatectomy; the quality of the evidence was judged to be moderate (for example 57% with urinary incontinence in the intervention group versus 62% in the control group, risk ratio (RR) for incontinence after 12 months 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.22). One large multi-centre trial of one-to-one therapy showed no difference in any urinary or quality of life outcome measures and had narrow CIs. It seems unlikely that men benefit from one-to-one PFMT therapy after TURP. Individual small trials provided data to suggest that electrical stimulation, external magnetic innervation, or combinations of treatments might be beneficial but the evidence was limited. Amongst trials of conservative treatment for all men after radical prostatectomy, aimed at both treatment and prevention, there was moderate evidence of an overall benefit from pelvic floor muscle training versus control management in terms of reduction of urinary incontinence (for example 10% with urinary incontinence after one year in the intervention groups versus 32% in the control groups, RR for urinary incontinence 0.32, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.51). However, this finding was not supported by other data from pad tests. The findings should be treated with caution because the risk of bias assessment showed methodological limitations. Men in one trial were more satisfied with one type of external compression device, which had the lowest urine loss, compared to two others or no treatment. The effect of other conservative interventions such as lifestyle changes remained undetermined as no trials involving these interventions were identified.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The value of the various approaches to conservative management of postprostatectomy incontinence after radical prostatectomy remains uncertain. The evidence is conflicting and therefore rigorous, adequately powered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which abide by the principles and recommendations of the CONSORT statement are still needed to obtain a definitive answer. The trials should be robustly designed to answer specific well constructed research questions and include outcomes which are important from the patient's perspective in decision making and are also relevant to the healthcare professionals. Long-term incontinence may be managed by an external penile clamp, but there are safety problems.

U2 - 10.1002/14651858.CD001843.pub5

DO - 10.1002/14651858.CD001843.pub5

M3 - Article

JO - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

JF - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

SN - 1469-493X

IS - 1

M1 - CD001843

ER -