Conservative interventions for managing urinary incontinence after prostate surgery.

BACKGROUND: Men may need to undergo prostate surgery to treat prostate cancer or benign prostatic hyperplasia. After these surgeries, men may experience urinary incontinence (UI). Conservative treatments such as pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), electrical stimulation and lifestyle changes can be undertaken to help manage the symptoms of UI. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of conservative interventions for managing urinary incontinence after prostate surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearched journals and conference proceedings (searched 22 April 2022). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of adult men (aged 18 or over) with UI following prostate surgery for treating prostate cancer or LUTS/BPO. We excluded cross-over and cluster-RCTs. We investigated the following key comparisons: PFMT plus biofeedback versus no treatment; sham treatment or verbal/written instructions; combinations of conservative treatments versus no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instructions; and electrical or magnetic stimulation versus no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instructions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using a pre-piloted form and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of outcomes and comparisons included in the summary of findings tables. We used an adapted version of GRADE to assess certainty in results where there was no single effect measurement available. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 25 studies including a total of 3079 participants. Twenty-three studies assessed men who had previously undergone radical prostatectomy or radical retropubic prostatectomy, while only one study assessed men who had undergone transurethral resection of the prostate. One study did not report on previous surgery. Most studies were at high risk of bias for at least one domain. The certainty of evidence assessed using GRADE was mixed. PFMT plus biofeedback versus no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instructions Four studies reported on this comparison. PFMT plus biofeedback may result in greater subjective cure of incontinence from 6 to 12 months (1 study; n = 102; low-certainty evidence). However, men undertaking PFMT and biofeedback may be less likely to be objectively cured at from 6 to 12 months (2 studies; n = 269; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether undertaking PFMT and biofeedback has an effect on surface or skin-related adverse events (1 study; n = 205; very low-certainty evidence) or muscle-related adverse events (1 study; n = 205; very low-certainty evidence). Condition-specific quality of life, participant adherence to the intervention and general quality of life were not reported by any study for this comparison. Combinations of conservative treatments versus no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instructions Eleven studies assessed this comparison. Combinations of conservative treatments may lead to little difference in the number of men being subjectively cured or improved of incontinence between 6 and 12 months (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.19; 2 studies; n = 788; low-certainty evidence; in absolute terms: no treatment or sham arm: 307 per 1000 and intervention arm: 297 per 1000). Combinations of conservative treatments probably lead to little difference in condition-specific quality of life (MD -0.28, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.29; 2 studies; n = 788; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably little difference in general quality of life between 6 and 12 months (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.02; 2 studies; n = 742; moderate-certainty evidence). There is little difference between combinations of conservative treatments and control in terms of objective cure or improvement of incontinence between 6 and 12 months (MD 0.18, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.60; 2 studies; n = 565; high-certainty evidence). However, it is uncertain whether participant adherence to the intervention between 6 and 12 months is increased for those undertaking combinations of conservative treatments (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.78 to 5.56; 2 studies; n = 763; very low-certainty evidence; in absolute terms: no intervention or sham arm: 172 per 1000 and intervention arm: 358 per 1000). There is probably no difference between combinations and control in terms of the number of men experiencing surface or skin-related adverse events (2 studies; n = 853; moderate-certainty evidence), but it is uncertain whether combinations of treatments lead to more men experiencing muscle-related adverse events (RR 2.92, 95% CI 0.31 to 27.41; 2 studies; n = 136; very low-certainty evidence; in absolute terms: 0 per 1000 for both arms). Electrical or magnetic stimulation versus no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instructions We did not identify any studies for this comparison that reported on our key outcomes of interest. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite a total of 25 trials, the value of conservative interventions for urinary incontinence following prostate surgery alone, or in combination, remains uncertain. Existing trials are typically small with methodological flaws. These issues are compounded by a lack of standardisation of the PFMT technique and marked variations in protocol concerning combinations of conservative treatments. Adverse events following conservative treatment are often poorly documented and incompletely described. Hence, there is a need for large, high-quality, adequately powered, randomised control trials with robust methodology to address this subject.

Minimally invasive treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a Cochrane network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the comparative effectiveness and ranking of minimally invasive treatments (MITs) for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched multiple databases up to 24 February 2021. We included randomized controlled trials assessing the following treatments: convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy (WVTT; or Rezum); prostatic arterial embolization (PAE); prostatic urethral lift (PUL; or Urolift); temporary implantable nitinol device (TIND); and transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) compared to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) or sham surgery. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis. RESULTS: We included 27 trials involving 3017 men. The overall certainty of the evidence of most outcomes according to GRADE was low to very low. Compared to TURP, we found that PUL and PAE may result in little to no difference in urological symptoms, while WVTT, TUMT and TIND may result in worse urological symptoms. MITs may result in little to no difference in quality of life, compared to TURP. MITs may result in a large reduction in major adverse events compared to TURP. We were uncertain about the effects of PAE and PUL on retreatment compared to TURP, however, TUMT may result in higher retreatment rates. We were very uncertain of the effects of MITs on erectile function and ejaculatory function. Among MITs, PUL and PAE had the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for urinary symptoms and quality of life, TUMT for major adverse events, WVTT and TIND for erectile function and PUL for ejaculatory function. Excluding WVTT and TIND, for which there were only studies with short-term (3-month) follow-up, PUL had the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for retreatment. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive treatments may result in similar or worse effects concerning urinary symptoms and quality of life compared to TURP at short-term follow-up.

Minimally invasive treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A variety of minimally invasive treatments are available as an alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). However, it is unclear which treatments provide better results. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to assess the comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with BPH through a network meta-analysis. Our secondary objective was to obtain an estimate of relative ranking of these minimally invasive treatments, according to their effects. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and LILACS), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to 24 February 2021. We had no restrictions on language of publication or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of the following minimally invasive treatments, compared to TURP or sham treatment, on men with moderate to severe LUTS due to BPH: convective radiofrequency water vapor therapy (CRFWVT); prostatic arterial embolization (PAE); prostatic urethral lift (PUL); temporary implantable nitinol device (TIND); and transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model for pair-wise comparisons and a frequentist network meta-analysis for combined estimates. We interpreted them according to Cochrane methods. We planned subgroup analyses by age, prostate volume, and severity of baseline symptoms. We used risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to express dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs to express continuous data. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 trials involving 3017 men, mostly over age 50, with severe LUTS due to BPH. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low due to concerns regarding bias, imprecision, inconsistency (heterogeneity), and incoherence. Based on the network meta-analysis, results for our main outcomes were as follows. Urologic symptoms (19 studies, 1847 participants): PUL and PAE may result in little to no difference in urologic symptoms scores (MD of International Prostate Symptoms Score [IPSS]) compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; MD range 0 to 35; higher scores indicate worse symptoms; PUL: 1.47, 95% CI -4.00 to 6.93; PAE: 1.55, 95% CI -1.23 to 4.33; low-certainty evidence). CRFWVT, TUMT, and TIND may result in worse urologic symptoms scores compared to TURP at short-term follow-up, but the CIs include little to no difference (CRFWVT: 3.6, 95% CI -4.25 to 11.46; TUMT: 3.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 7.10; TIND: 7.5, 95% CI -0.68 to 15.69; low-certainty evidence). Quality of life (QoL) (13 studies, 1459 participants): All interventions may result in little to no difference in the QoL scores, compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; MD of IPSS-QoL score; MD range 0 to 6; higher scores indicate worse symptoms; PUL: 0.06, 95% CI -1.17 to 1.30; PAE: 0.09, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.75; CRFWVT: 0.37, 95% CI -1.45 to 2.20; TUMT: 0.65, 95% CI -0.48 to 1.78; TIND: 0.87, 95% CI -1.04 to 2.79; low-certainty evidence). Major adverse events (15 studies, 1573 participants): TUMT probably results in a large reduction of major adverse events compared to TURP (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.43; moderate-certainty evidence). PUL, CRFWVT, TIND and PAE may also result in a large reduction in major adverse events, but CIs include substantial benefits and harms at three months to 36 months; PUL: RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.22; CRFWVT: RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.01 to 18.62; TIND: RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.01 to 24.46; PAE: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.68; low-certainty evidence). Retreatment (10 studies, 799 participants): We are uncertain about the effects of PAE and PUL on retreatment compared to TURP (12 to 60 months; PUL: RR 2.39, 95% CI 0.51 to 11.1; PAE: RR 4.39, 95% CI 1.25 to 15.44; very low-certainty evidence). TUMT may result in higher retreatment rates (RR 9.71, 95% CI 2.35 to 40.13; low-certainty evidence). Erectile function (six studies, 640 participants): We are very uncertain of the effects of minimally invasive treatments on erectile function (MD of International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF-5]; range 5 to 25; higher scores indicates better function; CRFWVT: 6.49, 95% CI -8.13 to 21.12; TIND: 5.19, 95% CI -9.36 to 19.74; PUL: 3.00, 95% CI -5.45 to 11.44; PAE: -0.03, 95% CI -6.38, 6.32; very low-certainty evidence). Ejaculatory dysfunction (eight studies, 461 participants): We are uncertain of the effects of PUL, PAE and TUMT on ejaculatory dysfunction compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; PUL: RR 0.05, 95 % CI 0.00 to 1.06; PAE: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.92; TUMT: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.68; low-certainty evidence). TURP is the reference treatment with the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for urinary symptoms, QoL and retreatment, but the least favorable in terms of major adverse events, erectile function and ejaculatory function. Among minimally invasive procedures, PUL and PAE have the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for urinary symptoms and QoL, TUMT for major adverse events, PUL for retreatment, CRFWVT and TIND for erectile function and PUL for ejaculatory function. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive treatments may result in similar or worse effects concerning urinary symptoms and QoL compared to TURP at short-term follow-up. They may result in fewer major adverse events, especially in the case of PUL and PAE; resulting in better rankings for symptoms scores. PUL may result in fewer retreatments compared to other interventions, especially TUMT, which had the highest retreatment rates at long-term follow-up. We are very uncertain about the effects of these interventions on erectile function. There was limited long-term data, especially for CRFWVT and TIND. Future high-quality studies with more extended follow-up, comparing different, active treatment modalities, and adequately reporting critical outcomes relevant to patients, including those related to sexual function, could provide more information on the relative effectiveness of these interventions.

Nonantibiotic Strategies for the Prevention of Infectious Complications following Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: We identify which nonantibiotic strategies could reduce the risk of infectious complications following prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a literature search on MEDLINE®, Embase® and the Cochrane Database for randomized controlled trials (inception to May 2020) assessing nonantibiotic interventions in prostate biopsy. Primary outcome was pooled infectious complications (fever, sepsis and symptomatic urinary tract infection) and secondary outcome was hospitalization. Cochrane risk of bias tool and GRADE approach were used to assess the bias and the certainty of evidence. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015026354). RESULTS: A total of 90 randomized controlled trials (16,941 participants) were included in the analysis, with 83 trials being categorized into one of 10 different interventions. Transperineal biopsy was associated with significantly reduced infectious complications as compared to transrectal biopsy (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33-0.92, p=0.02, I2=0%, 1,330 participants, 7 studies). Rectal preparation with povidone-iodine was also shown to reduce infectious complications (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.38-0.65, p <0.000001, I2=27%, 1,686 participants, 8 studies) as well as hospitalization (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21-0.69, p=0.002, I2=0%, 620 participants, 4 studies). We found no difference in infectious complications/hospitalization for 6 other interventions, ie number of biopsy cores, periprostatic nerve block, number of injections for periprostatic nerve block, needle guide type, needle type and rectal preparation with enema. In 2 interventions (needle diameter, rectal preparation with chlorhexidine) meta-analysis was not possible. Finally, 7 studies had unique interventions. The certainty of evidence was rated as low/very low for all interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Transperineal biopsy significantly reduces infectious complications compared to transrectal biopsy and should therefore be preferred. If transrectal biopsy is performed, rectal preparation with povidone-iodine is highly recommended. The other investigated nonantibiotic strategies did not significantly influence infection and hospitalization after prostate biopsy.

Bipolar versus monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is a well-established surgical method for treatment of men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). This has traditionally been provided as monopolar TURP (MTURP), but morbidity associated with MTURP has led to the introduction of other surgical techniques. In bipolar TURP (BTURP), energy is confined between electrodes at the site of the resectoscope, allowing the use of physiological irrigation medium. There remains uncertainty regarding differences between these surgical methods in terms of patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of bipolar and monopolar TURP. SEARCH METHODS: A comprehensive systematic electronic literature search was carried out up to 19 March 2019 via CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, and WHO ICTRP. Handsearching of abstract proceedings of major urological conferences and of reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, and health technology assessment reports was undertaken to identify other potentially eligible studies. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared monopolar and bipolar TURP in men (> 18 years) for management of LUTS secondary to BPO. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed eligible RCTs for risk of bias. Statistical analyses were undertaken according to the statistical guidelines presented in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The quality of evidence (QoE) was rated according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 59 RCTs with 8924 participants were included. The mean age of included participants ranged from 59.0 to 74.1 years. Mean prostate volume ranged from 39 mL to 82.6 mL. Primary outcomes BTURP probably results in little to no difference in urological symptoms, as measured by the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 12 months on a scale of 0 to 35, with higher scores reflecting worse symptoms (mean difference (MD) -0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.39 to -0.09; participants = 2531; RCTs = 16; I² = 0%; moderate certainty of evidence (CoE), downgraded for study limitations), compared to MTURP. BTURP probably results in little to no difference in bother, as measured by health-related quality of life (HRQoL) score at 12 months on a scale of 0 to 6, with higher scores reflecting greater bother (MD -0.12, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.02; participants = 2004; RCTs = 11; I² = 53%; moderate CoE, downgraded for study limitations), compared to MTURP. BTURP probably reduces transurethral resection (TUR) syndrome events slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.30; participants = 6745; RCTs = 44; I² = 0%; moderate CoE, downgraded for study limitations), compared to MTURP. This corresponds to 20 fewer TUR syndrome events per 1000 participants (95% CI 22 fewer to 17 fewer). Secondary outcomes BTURP may carry a similar risk of urinary incontinence at 12 months (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.06; participants = 751; RCTs = 4; I² = 0%; low CoE, downgraded for study limitations and imprecision), compared to MTURP. This corresponds to four fewer events of urinary incontinence per 1000 participants (95% CI five fewer to 16 more). BTURP probably slightly reduces blood transfusions (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.59; participants = 5727; RCTs = 38; I² = 0%; moderate CoE, downgraded for study limitations), compared to MTURP. This corresponds to 28 fewer events of blood transfusion per 1000 participants (95% CI 34 fewer to 20 fewer). BTURP may result in similar rates of re-TURP (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.40; participants = 652; RCTs = 6; I² = 0%; low CoE, downgraded for study limitations and imprecision). This corresponds to one more re-TURP per 1000 participants (95% CI 19 fewer to 48 more). Erectile function as measured by the International Index of Erectile Function score (IIEF-5) at 12 months on a scale from 5 to 25, with higher scores reflecting better erectile function, appears to be similar (MD 0.88, 95% CI -0.56 to 2.32; RCTs = 3; I² = 68%; moderate CoE, downgraded for study limitations) for the two approaches. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: BTURP and MTURP probably improve urological symptoms, both to a similar degree. BTURP probably reduces both TUR syndrome and postoperative blood transfusion slightly compared to MTURP. The impact of both procedures on erectile function is probably similar. The moderate certainty of evidence available for the primary outcomes of this review suggests that there is no need for further RCTs comparing BTURP and MTURP.

Benefits of Empiric Nutritional and Medical Therapy for Semen Parameters and Pregnancy and Live Birth Rates in Couples with Idiopathic Infertility: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Empiric use of medical and nutritional supplements to improve semen parameters and pregnancy rates in couples with idiopathic infertility has reached global proportions, although the evidence base for their use in this setting is controversial. OBJECTIVE: We systematically reviewed evidence comparing the benefits of nutritional and medical therapy on pregnancy rates and semen parameters in men with idiopathic infertility. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and the Cochrane Library (searched from January 1, 1990 to September 19, 2017). using the methods detailed in the Cochrane Handbook. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the certainty of evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The literature search identified 5663 citations, and after screening of abstracts and full texts, 61 studies (59 randomised controlled trials and two nonrandomised comparative studies) were included. Pooled results demonstrated that pentoxyfylline, coenzyme Q10, L-carnitine, follicle-stimulating hormone, tamoxifen, and kallikrein all resulted in improvements in semen parameters. Individual studies identified several other medical and nutritional therapies that improved semen parameters, but data were limited to individual studies with inherent methodological flaws. There were limited data available on live birth and pregnancy rates for all interventions. The GRADE certainty of evidence for all outcomes was very low mainly owing to methodological flaws and inconsistencies in study design. Some outcomes were also downgraded owing to imprecision of results. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that empiric medical and nutritional supplements may improve semen parameters. There is very limited evidence that empiric therapy leads to better live birth rates, spontaneous pregnancy, or pregnancy following assisted-reproductive techniques. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution as there were some methodological flaws, as a number of studies were judged to be either at high or unclear risk of bias for many domains. PATIENT SUMMARY: This review identified several medical and nutritional treatments, such as pentoxyfylline, coenzyme Q10, L-carnitine, follicle-stimulating hormone, tamoxifen, and kallikrein, that appear to improve semen parameters. However, there are limited data suggesting improvements in pregnancy and live birth rates. The lack of evidence can be attributed to methodological flaws in studies and the low number of pregnancies reported.

Pelvic floor muscle training added to another active treatment versus the same active treatment alone for urinary incontinence in women.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is a first-line conservative treatment for urinary incontinence in women. Other active treatments include: physical therapies (e.g. vaginal cones); behavioural therapies (e.g. bladder training); electrical or magnetic stimulation; mechanical devices (e.g. continence pessaries); drug therapies (e.g. anticholinergics (solifenacin, oxybutynin, etc.) and duloxetine); and surgical interventions including sling procedures and colposuspension. This systematic review evaluated the effects of adding PFMT to any other active treatment for urinary incontinence in women OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of pelvic floor muscle training combined with another active treatment versus the same active treatment alone in the management of women with urinary incontinence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 5 May 2015), and CINAHL (January 1982 to 6 May 2015), and the reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials with two or more arms, of women with clinical or urodynamic evidence of stress urinary incontinence, urgency urinary incontinence or mixed urinary incontinence. One arm of the trial included PFMT added to another active treatment; the other arm included the same active treatment alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and methodological quality and resolved any disagreement by discussion or consultation with a third party. We extracted and processed data in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Other potential sources of bias we incorporated into the 'Risk of bias' tables were ethical approval, conflict of interest and funding source. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen trials met the inclusion criteria, comprising women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI), urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) or mixed urinary incontinence (MUI); they compared PFMT added to another active treatment (585 women) with the same active treatment alone (579 women). The pre-specified comparisons were reported by single trials, except bladder training, which was reported by two trials, and electrical stimulation, which was reported by three trials. However, only two of the three trials reporting electrical stimulation could be pooled, as one of the trials did not report any relevant data. We considered the included trials to be at unclear risk of bias for most of the domains, predominantly due to the lack of adequate information in a number of trials. This affected our rating of the quality of evidence. The majority of the trials did not report the primary outcomes specified in the review (cure or improvement, quality of life) or measured the outcomes in different ways. Effect estimates from small, single trials across a number of comparisons were indeterminate for key outcomes relating to symptoms, and we rated the quality of evidence, using the GRADE approach, as either low or very low. More women reported cure or improvement of incontinence in two trials comparing PFMT added to electrical stimulation to electrical stimulation alone, in women with SUI, but this was not statistically significant (9/26 (35%) versus 5/30 (17%); risk ratio (RR) 2.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 5.38). We judged the quality of the evidence to be very low. There was moderate-quality evidence from a single trial investigating women with SUI, UUI or MUI that a higher proportion of women who received a combination of PFMT and heat and steam generating sheet reported a cure compared to those who received the sheet alone: 19/37 (51%) versus 8/37 (22%) with a RR of 2.38, 95% CI 1.19 to 4.73). More women reported cure or improvement of incontinence in another trial comparing PFMT added to vaginal cones to vaginal cones alone, but this was not statistically significant (14/15 (93%) versus 14/19 (75%); RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.71). We judged the quality of the evidence to be very low. Only one trial evaluating PFMT when added to drug therapy provided information about adverse events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.60; very low-quality evidence).With regard to condition-specific quality of life, there were no statistically significant differences between women (with SUI, UUI or MUI) who received PFMT added to bladder training and those who received bladder training alone at three months after treatment, on either the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-Revised scale (mean difference (MD) -5.90, 95% CI -35.53 to 23.73) or on the Urogenital Distress Inventory scale (MD -18.90, 95% CI -37.92 to 0.12). A similar pattern of results was observed between women with SUI who received PFMT plus either a continence pessary or duloxetine and those who received the continence pessary or duloxetine alone. In all these comparisons, the quality of the evidence for the reported critical outcomes ranged from moderate to very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review found insufficient evidence to state whether or not there were additional effects by adding PFMT to other active treatments when compared with the same active treatment alone for urinary incontinence (SUI, UUI or MUI) in women. These results should be interpreted with caution as most of the comparisons were investigated in small, single trials. None of the trials in this review were large enough to provide reliable evidence. Also, none of the included trials reported data on adverse events associated with the PFMT regimen, thereby making it very difficult to evaluate the safety of PFMT.

Conservative management for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence.

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.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of bipolar compared with monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).

To compare monopolar and bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for clinical effectiveness and adverse events. We conducted an electronic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Science Citation Index, and also searched reference lists of articles and abstracts from conference proceedings for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing monopolar and bipolar TURP. Two reviewers independently undertook data extraction and assessed the risk of bias in the included trials using the tool recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. From the 949 abstracts that were identified, 94 full texts were assessed for eligibility and a total of 24 trials were included in the review. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) or health-related quality of life (HRQL) score. Results for maximum urinary flow rate were significant at 3, 6 and 12 months (all P < 0.001), but no clinically significant differences were found and the meta-analysis showed evidence of heterogeneity Bipolar TURP was associated with fewer adverse events including transurethral resection syndrome (risk ratio [RR] 0.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05-0.31, P < 0.001), clot retention (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30-0.77, P = 0.002) and blood transfusion (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35-0.82, P = 0.004) Several major methodological limitations were identified in the included trials; 22/24 trials had a short follow-up of ≤1 year, there was no evidence of a sample size calculation in 20/24 trials and the application of GRADE showed the evidence for most of the assessed outcomes to be of moderate quality, including all those in which statistical differences were found. Whilst there is no overall difference between monopolar and bipolar TURP for clinical effectiveness, bipolar TURP is associated with fewer adverse events and therefore has a superior safety profile. Various methodological limitations were highlighted in the included trials and as such the results of this review should be interpreted with caution. There is a need for further well-conducted, multicentre RCTs with long-term follow-up data.

Pelvic floor muscle training added to another active treatment versus the same active treatment alone for urinary incontinence in women.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is a first-line conservative treatment for urinary incontinence in women. Other active treatments include: physical therapies (e.g. vaginal cones); behavioural therapies (e.g. bladder training); electrical or magnetic stimulation; mechanical devices (e.g. continence pessaries); drug therapies (e.g. anticholinergics (solifenacin, oxybutynin, etc.) and duloxetine); and surgical interventions including sling procedures and colposuspension. This systematic review evaluated the effects of adding PFMT to any other active treatment for urinary incontinence in women OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of pelvic floor muscle training combined with another active treatment versus the same active treatment alone in the management of women with urinary incontinence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 28 February 2013), EMBASE (January 1947 to 2013 Week 9), CINAHL (January 1982 to 5 March 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 30 May 2013), WHO ICTRP (searched 3 June 2013) and the reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials with two or more arms in women with clinical or urodynamic evidence of stress urinary incontinence, urgency urinary incontinence or mixed urinary incontinence. One arm of the trial included PFMT added to another active treatment; the other arm included the same active treatment alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and methodological quality and resolved any disagreement by discussion or consultation with a third party. We extracted and processed data in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Other potential sources of bias we incorporated into the 'Risk of bias' tables were ethical approval, conflict of interest and funding source. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven trials met the eligibility criteria for inclusion, comprising women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI), urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) or mixed urinary incontinence (MUI), and they compared PFMT added to another active treatment (494 women) with the same active treatment alone (490 women). The pre-specified comparisons were reported by single trials except electrical stimulation which was reported by two trials. However, the two trials reporting electrical stimulation could not be pooled as one of the trials did not report any relevant data. We considered the included trials to be at unclear risk of bias for most of the domains, predominantly due to the lack of adequate information in a number of trials. This affected our rating of the quality of evidence. The majority of the trials did not report the primary outcomes specified in the review (cure/improvement, quality of life) or measured the outcomes in different ways. Effect estimates from small, single trials across a number of comparisons were indeterminate for key outcomes relating to symptoms and we rated the quality of evidence, using the GRADE approach, as either low or very low. There was moderate-quality evidence from a single trial investigating women with SUI, UUI or MUI that a higher proportion of women who received a combination of PFMT and heat and steam generating sheet reported cure compared to those who received the sheet alone: 19/37 (51%) versus 8/37 (22%) with a risk ratio (RR) of 2.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 4.73). More women reported cure or improvement of incontinence in another trial comparing PFMT added to vaginal cones to vaginal cones alone: 14/15 (93%) versus 14/19 (75%), but this was not statistically significant (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.71). We judged the quality of the evidence to be very low. Only one trial evaluating PFMT when added to drug therapy provided information about adverse events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.60; very low-quality evidence).With regard to condition-specific quality of life, there were no statistically significant differences between women (with SUI, UUI or MUI) who received PFMT added to bladder training and those who received bladder training alone at three months after treatment either on the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-Revised scale (mean difference (MD) -5.90, 95% CI -35.53 to 23.73) or on the Urogenital Distress Inventory scale (MD -18.90, 95% CI -37.92 to 0.12). A similar pattern of results was observed between women with SUI who received PFMT plus either a continence pessary or duloxetine and those who received the continence pessary or duloxetine alone. In all these comparisons, the quality of the evidence for the reported critical outcomes ranged from moderate to very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review found insufficient evidence to state whether or not there were additional effects of adding PFMT to other active treatment when compared with the same active treatment alone for urinary incontinence (SUI, UUI or MUI) in women. These results should be interpreted with caution as most of the comparisons were investigated in small, single trials. None of the trials in this review were large enough to provide reliable evidence. Also, none of the included trials reported data on adverse events associated with the PFMT regimen, thereby making it very difficult to evaluate the safety of PFMT.

Electrical stimulation with non-implanted electrodes for urinary incontinence in men.

BACKGROUND: Electrical stimulation with non-implanted devices is used for patients with different types of urinary incontinence and symptoms of urgency, frequency and nocturia. The current review focused on electrical stimulation with non-implanted devices for the treatment of urinary incontinence in men. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of electrical stimulation with non-implanted devices for men with stress, urgency or mixed urinary incontinence in comparison with no treatment, placebo treatment, or any other 'single' treatment. Additionally, the effectiveness of electrical stimulation with non-implanted devices in combination with another intervention was compared with the other intervention alone. Finally, the effectiveness of one method of electrical stimulation with non-implanted devices was compared with another method. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 21 January 2012). We also searched other electronic and non-electronic bibliographic databases and the reference lists of the included studies as well as contacting researchers in the field to identify other relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed all the identified trials for eligibility. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for determining bias. Disagreements were resolved by discussion, and a third review author was involved in the case of no consensus. Data were analysed using Cochrane methods. MAIN RESULTS: Six randomized controlled trials (five full papers and one abstract) were included. There was considerable variation in the interventions used, study protocols, types of electrical stimulation parameters and devices, study populations and outcome measures. In total 544 men were included, of whom 305 received some form of electrical stimulation, and 239 a control or comparator treatment. The trials were mostly small and generally there was not sufficient information to assess risk of bias; only two trials used secure methods of randomization.There was some evidence that electrical stimulation (ES) had a short-term effect in reducing incontinence compared with sham treatment (for example risk ratio (RR) at six months 0.38, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.87) but not at 12 months. Four trials evaluated the effect of adding PFMT to ES versus pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) alone or with biofeedback. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in the number of men with urinary incontinence at three months (146/239, 61% for combined treatment versus 98/156, 63% with PFMT alone; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.06). However, there were more adverse effects with combined treatment (23/139, 17% versus 2/99, 2% with PFMT alone; RR 7.04, 95% CI 1.51 to 32.94) and quality of life also seemed better with PFMT alone. One small trial did not detect statistically significant differences between two methods of administration of transcutaneous electrical stimulation (anal versus perineal) but the quality of life score was lower (better) in the anal stimulation group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was some evidence that electrical stimulation enhanced the effect of PFMT in the short term but not after six months. There were, however, more adverse effects (pain or discomfort) with electrical stimulation.

Systematic review of perioperative and quality-of-life outcomes following surgical management of localised renal cancer.

CONTEXT: For the treatment of localised renal cell carcinoma (RCC), uncertainties remain over the perioperative and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes for the many different surgical techniques and approaches of nephrectomy. Controversy also remains on whether newer minimally invasive nephron-sparing interventions offer better QoL and perioperative outcomes, and whether adrenalectomy and lymphadenectomy should be performed simultaneously with nephrectomy. These non-oncological outcomes are important because they may have a considerable impact on localised RCC treatment decision making. OBJECTIVE: To review systematically all the relevant published literature comparing perioperative and QoL outcomes of surgical management of localised RCC (T1-2N0M0). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Relevant databases including Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2012. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials, prospective observational studies with controls, retrospective matched-pair studies, and comparative studies from well-defined registries/databases were included. The outcome measures were QoL, analgesic requirement, length of hospital stay, time to normal activity level, surgical morbidity and complications, ischaemia time, renal function, blood loss, length of operation, need for blood transfusion, and perioperative mortality. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess RCTs, and an extended version was used to assess nonrandomised studies (NRSs). The quality of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 4580 abstracts and 380 full-text articles were assessed, and 29 studies met the inclusion criteria (7 RCTs and 22 NRSs). There were high risks of bias and low-quality evidence for studies meeting the inclusion criteria. There is good evidence indicating that partial nephrectomy results in better preservation of renal function and better QoL outcomes than radical nephrectomy regardless of technique or approach. Regarding radical nephrectomy, the laparoscopic approach has better perioperative outcomes than the open approach, and there is no evidence of a difference between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. Alternatives to standard laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) such as hand-assisted, robot-assisted, or single-port techniques appear to have similar perioperative outcomes. There is no good evidence to suggest that minimally invasive procedures such as cryotherapy or radiofrequency ablation have superior perioperative or QoL outcomes to nephrectomy. Regarding concomitant lymphadenectomy during nephrectomy, there were low event rates for complications, and no definitive difference was observed. There was no evidence to base statements about concomitant ipsilateral adrenalectomy during nephrectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Partial nephrectomy results in significantly better preservation of renal function over radical nephrectomy. For tumours where partial nephrectomy is not technically feasible, there is no evidence that alternative procedures or techniques are better than LRN in terms of perioperative or QoL outcomes. In making treatment decisions, perioperative and QoL outcomes should be considered in conjunction with oncological outcomes. Overall, there was a paucity of data regarding QoL outcomes, and when reported, both QoL and perioperative outcomes were inconsistently defined, measured, or reported. The current evidence base has major limitations due to studies of low methodological quality marked by high risks of bias.