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.