Quantification of changes in detrusor function and pressure-flow parameters after radical prostatectomy: relation to postoperative continence status and the impact of intensity of pelvic floor muscle exercises.

OBJECTIVES: We aim to quantify changes in detrusor function and pressure-flow parameters after radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) and to determine the impact of the level of intensity of pelvic floor muscle exercises (PFME) on these changes. We also tried to identify preoperative urodynamic factors, predictive of postoperative continence status. METHODS: Sixty-six patients were included in the study. An urodynamic examination was performed before surgery and 26 weeks after catheter removal. All patients were instructed in PFME. However the intensity of PFME varied between instructions based on an information folder only (F-PFME) and intensive guidance by a physiotherapist, in addition to the folder (PG-PFME). RESULTS: In 66 men pre- as well as postoperative urodynamic studies were available for analysis. Overall, Q(max) increased, p(det.Qmax) and the urethral resistance factor URA decreased significantly after surgery. At baseline, detrusor overactivity (DOA) was found in 34% and 5.3% of the men who were still incontinent 6 months postoperatively and those who regained continence, respectively (P = 0.015). Postoperatively, Q(max) was significantly higher (P = 0.04) and URA significantly lower (P = 0.047) in the physiotherapist-guided group. No prognostic standard urodynamic factors for post-RP incontinence (PRPI) were identified. CONCLUSION: In univariate analysis, preoperative DOA is associated with a higher risk of remaining incontinent after surgery. However, in multivariate analysis, urodynamic parameters predictive of PRPI could not be identified. Therefore, standard preoperative filling cystometry and pressure-flow studies seem to have no role as preoperative predictors of PRPI in patients with localized prostate cancer. More intensive PFME might have a lowering effect on bladder outflow resistance after RRP.

Urodynamic quantification of decrease in sphincter function after radical prostatectomy: relation to postoperative continence status and the effect of intensive pelvic floor muscle exercises.

AIMS: We analyzed the impact of radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) on the urethral sphincter function as assessed by urethral pressure profilometry (UPP) and its relation to post-radical prostatectomy continence status. Furthermore, we analyzed the effect of intensive pelvic floor muscle exercises (PFME) on the urethral sphincter function. METHODS: Sixty-six patients were included in the study. UPP was performed before RRP and 26 weeks after catheter removal. All patients were instructed in PFME, however, the intensity of PFME varied between instructions based on an information folder only (F-PFME) and intensive guidance by a physiotherapist, in addition to the folder (PG-PFME). RESULTS: In 66 patients, pre- as well as postoperative UPP was evaluable. After surgery, the functional profile length and the maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP) showed a median decrease of 64% and 41%, respectively. For men who had regained continence after 6 months the median MUCP was significantly higher both before and after operation as compared to men who were still incontinent. In multivariate analysis, non-nerve sparing approach was a prognostic factors for a higher relative decrease of the MUCP after RRP. Comparing the PG-PFME group with the F-PFME group there were no significant differences in changes in UPP parameters. CONCLUSIONS: A poor preoperative MUCP seems to be an important prognostic factor for persistent incontinence after RRP. Non-nerve sparing approach seems to be an important prognostic factor for impairment of the urethral sphincter function as measured by UPP. More intensive physiotherapy seems to have no additional effect on the postoperative urethral sphincter function as measured by UPP.

The recovery of urinary continence after radical retropubic prostatectomy: a randomized trial comparing the effect of physiotherapist-guided pelvic floor muscle exercises with guidance by an instruction folder only.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect on the recovery of incontinence after retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) of intensive physiotherapist-guided pelvic floor muscle exercises (PG-PFME) in addition to an information folder, with PFME explained to patients by an information folder only (F-PFME), and to determine independent predictors of failure to regain continence after RRP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We postulated that a 10% increase in the proportion of men who regained continence at 6 months with PG-PFME compared with men treated with F-PFME only would constitute a clinically relevant effect. To show statistical significance of this difference with a power of 80%, 96 men should be randomized to each of the two arms. One day before operation, all patients received verbal instruction and an information folder on PFME. Patients randomized to the F-PFME arm received no further physiotherapist guidance, whereas those in the PG-PFME arm received a maximum of nine sessions with the physiotherapist. The men underwent a 1-h pad-test at 1, 12 and 26 weeks, and a 24-h pad-test at 1, 4, 8, 12 and 26 weeks after catheter removal. We defined 'continence' as urine loss of <1 g at the 1-h and <4 g at the 24-h pad-test. RESULTS: During the 2-year recruitment period, the number of patients randomized fell short of the target determined by the sample size calculation, because of limitations of resources and unexpected changes in treatment preferences. Despite this, we analysed the data. Of the 82 randomized patients, 70 completed the study. Of these, 34 and 36 men had been assigned to the PG-PFME and the F-PFME group, respectively. At 6 months after RRP, 10 (30%) and nine (27%) men were completely dry on both the 1-h and 24-h pad-test in the PG-PFME and the F-PFME group, respectively (difference not significant). In a multivariate analysis the amount of urine loss at 1 week after catheter removal seemed to be an independent prognostic factor for failure to regain continence. CONCLUSION: PG-PFME seems to have no beneficial effect on the recovery of continence within the first 6 months after RRP, over an instruction folder-guided approach. However, due to under-powering there is a high risk of type II error. Nevertheless, these findings add to the knowledge base for availability in meta-analyses and can serve as a starting point for the design of new randomized studies.