Suppr超能文献

根治性耻骨后前列腺切除术后排尿自控恢复的研究:一项比较物理治疗师指导盆底肌锻炼与仅指导使用指导文件夹效果的随机试验。

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.

机构信息

Department of Urology, Elisabeth Hospital, Tilburg, the Netherlands.

出版信息

BJU Int. 2010 Aug;106(4):515-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09159.x. Epub 2010 Mar 1.

Abstract

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.

摘要

目的

比较强化物理治疗师指导的骨盆底肌肉运动(PG-PFME)联合信息手册与仅使用信息手册向患者讲解 PFME 对耻骨后前列腺切除术(RRP)后尿失禁恢复的影响,并确定 RRP 后无法恢复尿失禁的独立预测因素。

方法

我们假设与仅接受 F-PFME 治疗的男性相比,PG-PFME 可使 6 个月时恢复尿失禁的男性比例增加 10%,这将构成临床相关的效果。为了以 80%的功效显示出这种差异的统计学意义,每组应随机分配 96 名男性。所有患者在手术前一天接受口头指导和 PFME 信息手册。随机分配到 F-PFME 组的患者没有接受进一步的物理治疗师指导,而接受 PG-PFME 组的患者最多接受了 9 次物理治疗师指导。男性在导管拔除后 1、12 和 26 周时进行 1 小时尿垫试验,在导管拔除后 1、4、8、12 和 26 周时进行 24 小时尿垫试验。我们将“尿失禁”定义为 1 小时尿垫试验时尿液丢失<1g,24 小时尿垫试验时尿液丢失<4g。

结果

在 2 年的招募期间,由于资源限制和治疗偏好的意外变化,随机患者人数未达到样本量计算确定的目标。尽管如此,我们仍对数据进行了分析。在 82 名随机患者中,有 70 名完成了研究。其中,34 名和 36 名男性分别被分配到 PG-PFME 和 F-PFME 组。在 RRP 后 6 个月时,PG-PFME 和 F-PFME 组分别有 10(30%)和 9(27%)名男性在 1 小时和 24 小时尿垫试验中完全无尿失禁(差异无统计学意义)。在多变量分析中,导管拔除后 1 周时的尿液丢失量似乎是无法恢复尿失禁的独立预后因素。

结论

与指导文件夹引导的方法相比,PG-PFME 似乎对 RRP 后最初 6 个月内的尿失禁恢复没有有益影响。但是,由于功效不足,存在 II 型错误的高风险。尽管如此,这些发现增加了可供荟萃分析使用的知识库,并可以作为新的随机研究设计的起点。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验