The therapeutic effect of pelvic floor muscle exercise on urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis.

Pelvic floor muscle exercise (PFME) is the most common conservative management for urinary incontinence (UI) after radical prostatectomy (RP). However, whether the PFME guided by a therapist (G-PFME) can contribute to the recovery of urinary continence for patients after RP is still controversial. We performed this meta-analysis to investigate the effectiveness of G-PFME on UI after RP and to explore whether the additional preoperative G-PFME is superior to postoperative G-PFME alone. Literature search was conducted on Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed, to obtain all relevant randomized controlled trials published before March 1, 2018. Outcome data were pooled and analyzed with Review Manager 5.3 to compare the continence rates of G-PFME with control and to compare additional preoperative G-PFME with postoperative G-PFME. Twenty-two articles with 2647 patients were included. The continence rates of G-PFME were all superior to control at different follow-up time points, with the odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) of 2.79 (1.53-5.07), 2.80 (1.87-4.19), 2.93 (1.19-7.22), 4.11 (2.24-7.55), and 2.41 (1.33-4.36) at 1 month, 3 months, 4 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery, respectively. However, there was no difference between additional preoperative G-PFME and postoperative G-PFME, with the OR (95% CI) of 1.70 (0.56-5.11) and 1.35 (0.41-4.40) at 1 month and 3 months after RP, respectively. G-PFME could improve the recovery of urinary continence at both early and long-term stages. Starting the PFME preoperatively might not produce extra benefits for patients at early stage, compared with postoperative PFME.

A biopsychosocial model of resilience for breast cancer: A preliminary study in mainland China.

PURPOSE: Patients diagnosed with breast cancer exhibited critical biopsychosocial functions following surgery or adjuvant treatment; therefore, it is important that they exhibit resilience. A Resilience Model for Breast Cancer (RM-BC) was developed using Chinese breast cancer patients to increase our understanding of how resilience outcomes are positively and negatively affected by protective and risk factors, respectively. METHODS: Chinese women with breast cancer completed the questionnaires within 1 week of beginning treatment. Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling was used to evaluate the RM-BC using a sample size of 342 patients. RESULTS: RM-BC suggested satisfactory goodness-of-fit indices and 67 percents of variance for resilience was explained. The Fit Indices for the measurement model were as follows: CFI = 0.909, GFI = 0.911, IFI = 0.897, NFI = 0.922, PNFI = 0.896, PCFI = 0.884, and RMSEA = 0.031. Three risk factors - emotional distress, physical distress, and intrusive thoughts - and four protective factors - self-efficacy, social support, courage-related strategy, and hope - were recognized. CONCLUSION: The resilience model allows for a better understanding of Chinese breast cancer patients' resilience integration while undergoing treatment and provides an effective structure for the development of resilience-focused interventions that are grounded in their experiences. A randomized trial has provided evidences of feasibility in Chinese women with breast cancer and the resilience model could be used as a useful framework for more resilience intervention in the future.