A biofeedback-guided programme or pelvic floor muscle electric stimulation can improve early recovery of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy: A meta-analysis and systematic review.

PURPOSE: Urinary incontinence (UI) after radical prostatectomy (RP) is an early side effect after catheter removal. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare different forms of non-invasive treatments for post-RP UI and to analyse whether the addition of biofeedback (BF) and/or pelvic floor muscle electric stimulation (PFES) to PF muscle exercise (PFME) alone can improve results in terms of continence recovery rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. We performed a cumulative meta-analysis to explore the trend in the effect sizes across subgroups during a 12-months follow-up. RESULTS: Twenty-six articles were selected. At baseline after RP and catheter removal, mean pad weight varied extremely. At 1- and 3-months intervals, mean difference in pad weight recovery from baseline was significantly higher using guided programs (BF, PFES or both) than using PFME alone (3-months: PFME 111.09 g (95%CI 77.59-144.59), BF 213.81 g (95%CI -80.51-508-13), PFES 306.88 g (95%CI 158.11-455.66), BF + PFES 266.31 g (95%CI 22.69-302.93); P < .01), while at 6- and 12-months differences were similar (P > .04). At 1- and 3-months intervals, event rate (ER) of continence recovery was significantly higher using guided programs than using PFME alone (3-months: PFME 0.40 (95%CI 0.30-0.49), BF 0.49 (95%CI 0.31-0.67), PFES 0.57 (95%CI 0.46-0.69), BF + PFES 0.75 (95%CI 0.60-0.91); P < .01), while at 6- and 12-months ERs were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Regarding non-invasive treatment of UI secondary to RP, the addition of guided programs using BF or/and PFES demonstrated to improve continence recovery rate, particularly in the first 3-month interval, when compared with the use of PFME alone.

Safety and Feasibility of Outpatient Surgery in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Purpose: Most of the endourologic procedures along the urinary tract have been widely practiced as outpatient operations, including surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess safety and feasibility of outpatient surgery for patients suffering from symptomatic BPH candidate for endoscopic disobstruction. Materials and Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Embase were searched up until March 30, 2020. Methodological index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS) tool was utilized to assess the quality of included studies, and a pooled measure of failure rate (FR) or event rate (ER) estimate was calculated. Further sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and meta-regression were conducted to investigate contribution of moderators to heterogeneity. Results: Twenty studies with a total of 1626 patients treated according to outpatient criteria for endoscopic BPH surgery were included. In total, 18 studies reporting data on immediate hospital readmission and/or inability to discharge after endoscopic procedure presented FR estimates ranging from 1.7% to 51.1%. Pooled FR estimate was 7.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.2-10.3); Heterogeneity: Q = 76.85; degree of freedom = 17, p < 0.001; I2 = 75.12%. Subgroup analysis according to surgical technique revealed difference among the three approaches with pooled FR of 3% (95% CI: 1-4.9), 7.1% (95% CI: 3.9-10.4), and 11.8% (95% CI: 7-16.7) for transurethral resection of the prostate, Green-light, and holmium laser vaporesection, respectively (p < 0.001). At meta-regression analysis, none of the retrieved covariates was able to significantly influence the cumulative outcomes reported. ER for postoperative complications and early outpatient visit showed a pooled estimate of 18.6% (95% CI: 13.2-23.9) and 7.7% (95% CI: 4.3-11), respectively. Conclusions: Our analysis revealed how transurethral procedures for BPH on an outpatient setting are overall reliable and safe. Of note, there were significant outcome differences between groups with regard to type of surgical procedure, perioperative prostate volume, and discharge protocol suggesting the need for further prospective analysis to better elucidate the best strategy in such outpatient conduct.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Infertility in Men: AUA/ASRM Guideline PART II.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part II of the two-part series dedicated to the Diagnosis and Treatment of Infertility in Men: AUA/ASRM Guideline. Part II outlines the appropriate management of the male in an infertile couple. Medical therapies, surgical techniques, as well as use of intrauterine insemination (IUI)/in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) are covered to allow for optimal patient management. Please refer to Part I for discussion on evaluation of the infertile male and discussion of relevant health conditions that are associated with male infertility. MATERIALS/METHODS: The Emergency Care Research Institute Evidence-based Practice Center team searched PubMed®, Embase®, and Medline from January 2000 through May 2019. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table[Table: see text]). This summary is being simultaneously published in Fertility and Sterility and The Journal of Urology. RESULTS: This Guideline provides updated, evidence-based recommendations regarding management of male infertility. Such recommendations are summarized in the associated algorithm (figure[Figure: see text]). CONCLUSION: Male contributions to infertility are prevalent, and specific treatment as well as assisted reproductive techniques are effective at managing male infertility. This document will undergo additional literature reviews and updating as the knowledge regarding current treatments and future treatment options continues to expand.

The use of complementary and alternative fertility treatment in couples seeking fertility care: data from a prospective cohort in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use among couples seeking fertility care and to identify the predictors of CAM use in this population. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Eight community and academic infertility practices. PATIENT(S): A total of 428 couples presenting for an infertility evaluation. INTERVENTION(S): Interviews and questionnaires. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine therapy. RESULT(S): After 18 months of observation, 29% of the couples had utilized a CAM modality for treatment of infertility; 22% had tried acupuncture, 17% herbal therapy, 5% a form of body work, and 1% meditation. An annual household income of > or = $200,000 (odds ratio 2.8, relative to couples earning <$100,000), not achieving a pregnancy (odds ratio 2.3), and a positive attitude toward CAM use at baseline were independently associated with CAM use. CONCLUSION(S): A substantial minority of infertile couples use CAM treatments. CAM was chosen most commonly by wealthier couples, those not achieving a pregnancy, and those with a baseline belief in the effectiveness of CAM treatments.